Buffy Thesis HELP!!!
-- Allison,
06:39:26 11/22/04 Mon
I'm currently working on a research paper related to BtVS, or
rather trying to. I need a subject answering a "Why"
question that i can write about 10 pages on. Any ideas? E-mail
me...I'd love some help!!!!
dancingchic5@yahoo.com
(no literary analysis questions though, this means nothing like
"Why did Buffy engage in A self-destructive relationship
with Spike?" type ideas) Replies:
[> Here's one ... -- frisby, 15:40:04 11/22/04 Mon
Question: why did Buffy choose to have the Initiative remove Spike's
chip rather than just repare it?
The answer, the subject, is Buffy's belief that Spike can be a
good man now that he has a soul, even without the chip. Your ten
pages could focus on Buffy's belief: it's history, key moments
(e.g., 7.2), and anticipations on her part (that he will help
her win).
[> [> Re: Here's one ... -- skpe, 05:14:13 11/23/04
Tue
Question what does the portrayal of the First say about the nature
of Evil
You could show how this contrasts with or is supported by Christian
beliefs in the devil. The nature of evil in other religions and
then contrasts that with evils explanation in modern psychology.
[> [> [> and you could focus on ... -- frisby,
10:05:21 11/23/04 Tue
and you could focus on what The First (in the guise of Joyce)
says to Buffy about evil being everywhere and unconquerable and
part of nature and so on ...
That's really not a bad topic: what The First Evil says about
'evil'
...........(there's also what Cassie (1st) says to Willow about
tiring of the mortal coil and the balance of good and evil and
going for the big finish
wow, great assignment, sounds like fun James Marsters on "The
Mountain" last night -- purplegrrl, 07:09:08 11/22/04
Mon
Okay, I *know* JM is supposed to be in his early 40s, but I just
could not get my mind wrapped around the idea of him playing the
father to one of the teenage characters on WB's "The Mountain"
last night. And yes, it was also weird to hear him speak without
his Spike accent, but I was anticipating that.
On the up side, JM exhibited no overtly "Spike" gestures,
proving he is an actor who can step into the skin of the character
he's playing.
[And of course the WB was completely and utterly shameless in
its promotion of last night's episode: Advertising "Buffy
the Vampire Slayer's James Marsters", when the WB was the
network that dumped BtVS because it wasn't bringing in enough
audience or whatever.] Replies:
[> Re: James Marsters on "The Mountain" last night
-- Giles scuttling from his hidey hole, 10:27:20 11/22/04 Mon
I normally stay far far away from shows like the mountian and
the OC, but I watched because of JM, and his scenes were not as
melodramatic as all other scenes, which was qwuite a thing to
accomplish :)
[> [> Re: James Marsters on "The Mountain"
last night -- Cheryl, 17:36:50 11/22/04 Mon
I watched, too, only for JM. It was really nice to see him in
such a different role. Loved how they threw in the Shakespeare
- which I'm sure they did specfically for JM. Existentialism Vs Egoism
-- Kana, 07:31:10 11/22/04 Mon
Hi
I was having a discussion with a learned friend about how egoism
and existentialism are contrary. It came from a humourous statement
i made but nevermind about that. I wanted to know if what my friend
said is true, that the two concepts cannot coexist. If so why?
I wanted to know if it could be argued either way. Thanks guys.
By the way you are talking to a layperson here so.... go easy. Replies:
[> Dostoyevsky wrote about this -- Cleanthes,
13:03:39 11/22/04 Mon
The long short-story "Notes from the Underground" is
a very existentialist take on a very egotistical man.
The egotistical main character IS existential, but in order
to be thus, he has to be intentionally self-loathing and perverse.
[> It all turns on how we understand the 'ego' -- frisby,
15:35:52 11/22/04 Mon
The answer to your question can go either way, depending on how
'ego' is understand. It's latin for 'I' -- by the way -- and entered
public discourse primarily through Freud, although Descartes's
famous "I think, Therefore I am" is in latin "Cogito
Ergo Sum" and 'Ego' is considered implicit in 'Sum' --
So, is your 'ego' merely your social mask, or your personality,
or your 'essential self' or just your identity, or even your soul?
The question here is not so much "who are you" but "what
are you" -- the metaphysical question.
Sartre's version of existentialism (which claims to come from
Heidegger although Heidegger claims its a radical perversion)
comes down to 'existence precedes essence' meaning (in this context)
that your ego is a product of your everyday circumstances (your
family, friends, where you live, what you do, etc), and if you
change your circumstances you can change your ego.
On the other hand, if you think of your ego as your essential
identity, your soul even, which maybe existed before birth and
even after death, etc., then you're not an existentialist, in
any of the usual senses (although Altizer's brand might allow
for something of the sort -- not sure of that).
For the most part, I'm an existentialist for the most part of
the Heideggarian part, although a lot of non-Heideggerian Nietzscheanism
is addeded in. I think your identity is to be found with your
past -- you 'are' what you've been; your 'ego' or what Nietzsche
calls the "little self" is merely an emergent manifestation
of your history, while your "larger self" simply is
isomorphic with your history or past.
I gotta go -- any questions?
[> [> Re: It all turns on how we understand the 'ego'
-- Kana, 03:17:51 11/23/04 Tue
I suppose now we have determined what the ego is or at the very
least we have sifted through the definitons of the ego. I suppose
we could be here for months on end defining the 'self' in self
interest but I suppose that would be a of little use to me and
not a great use of your time. I suppose the way we may have to
do this is to works backwards.
I think existentialism is a difficult term to define (perhaps
more easily defined through what it is not). I know some of the
themes in existentialism but i have trouble simply defining it
for what it is. So i suppose what we could do is look at some
of the concepts of which existentialism consists and see how that
conflicts (or not as the case maybe) with living a life devoted
to self interest.
I suppose some of the themes i keep coming across in existentialism
are choice, personal freedom, subjectivism, and meaninglessness.
If i were to take meaninglessness, in the context of how we are
to live our lives defining it oursleves without any inherent meaning
or nature then i suppose we could argue that this in conflict
with egoism in the way that egoism is considered an intrinsic
quality. Egoism would also be in conflict with our freedom. That
all our actions our self motivated is somewhat deterministic i
suppose. But if ones motives our self motivated by choice (i.e.
they would not suppose that this a universal doctrine)
then could they not be an existentialist and an egoist?
Again forgive my ignorance.
[> [> [> The answer to your question (and the secret
of life) -- frisby, 03:16:33 11/24/04 Wed
Your first paragraph establishes the self-interested ego as our
focus. Defining existentialism is not necessarily that hard; one
simple way is the proposition that we are bodies entirely and
the soul is fictitious; or again, that the sensuous material world
is real and the supersensuous world is imaginary; or last, that
this life is all one gets and any afterlife or afterworld is a
delusion.
Your second paragraph questions whether the life lived in favor
of the self-interested ego is necessarily in conflict with life
or existence itself. The answer is yes because life or existence
says to the self-interested ego: Stop! No! Die! and because the
self-interested ego says to life or existence: Go! Yes! More!
The two are in conflict and the best image comes from Nietzsche:
two rivers rushing down separate canyons and then meeting head-on
we are that collision. So, again, yes, we are in conflict with
life, we are in opposition to existence: we desire the future
but time desires that we pass into the past and cease to be. These
words need to be kept fluid though, of course, and one might posit
life itself as that opposition between human will and existence
(as manifest in time s desire).
The philosophy of existentialism does indeed develop the themes
you mention in your third paragraph: choice, personal freedom,
subjectivism, and meaninglessness (one might add autonomy, responsibility,
values, and purposelessness although Heidegger stresses care,
temporality, dread, conscience, death, and other more technical
terms such as facticity). Another image might help here: instead
of imagining two rivers colliding, imagine instead a small river
with you making your way upstream against the current which seems
to want you to give up and just go with the flow. You are absolutely
free to let go or to struggle upstream; to struggle it might help
to think of yourself as having a very important task that makes
you the one charged to complete the task also important, but these
thoughts are subjective, and there is (in the sense of the river
itself) no meaning or purpose to your struggle especially since
you will eventually fail and will be carried away by the river
to the sea of the eternal past. To argue that your self-interested
ego is intrinsically valuable or has intrinsic quality is simply
to engage in self-delusion, although this might prove vitally
useful, if one can successfully delude themselves into becoming
more stupid than they in fact are. But whatever your heroic struggle
against the river of existence becomes, that becomes your essence
(for many this is their work and the roles they assume in society).
I won t address freedom and determinism at this time because the
complexity would likely escalate, but suffice to say that a full
judgment of the value of an act needs to consider the causes and
consequences of that act, as well as the motives (both conscious
and instinctual) and intentions behind that act. Choice becomes
tied up fundamentally with perception, especially with temporal
orientation. Closing, yes, one can be both an existentialist and
an egoist this becomes an opposition, a struggle, a fight to the
death. If one assumes the propositions of the existentialist position
to be simply true, then the egoist position gives up and ceases
to be. If one selectively focuses on the perspective of the ego,
using imagination to delude one s self about life and existence,
then the existentialist position seems absurd and the struggle
begins. As Nietzsche said, most people live and struggle against
existence only through the use of simplification (including religion
for the most part) and falsification (including art for the most
part). The ego does have the power to pretend it has power over
existence and will eventually triumph over it but it s not true,
according to the existentialist position.
As to forgiving your ignorance, maybe I should admire or even
envy it? Ignorance really is bliss in some ways. Some people simply
by nature find themselves driven to fight for knowledge and struggle
to find out the truth, even if knowledge tastes terrible and truth
is deadly. But even those who desire truth, according again to
Nietzsche, can not fight on very long without the powers of forgiveness
and especially the power to forget except maybe in the singular
highest sense.
Does any of this help? Further questions? More elaboration? Wittgenstein
said philosophy is something most need an inoculation against,
that is, a little bit so as to develop an immunity and then no
more. Others, but not very many, prefer enucleation over inoculation
and so keep peeling away layer after layer aiming for that secret
mysterious core life s secret (which Nietzsche claims is the will
to power).
[> [> [> [> But existence can have power over the
ego -- manwitch, 05:44:47 11/24/04 Wed
Nice post, frisby.
It just reminded me of how the poststructuralists use discourse
and linguistics to show how subjectivity is created. So your ego
is the product, not of an essence or soul that is either placed
in you from outside or that predates you and cloaks itself in
physical existence, but rather of historical contingency, the
accidents of time, place, language, discourse, and even force.
So your sense of self, of identity, of the soul, is itself a material
byproduct of your existence, not separate from it.
From the other side, I always felt the emphasis in existentialism
on the anguish of the individual, the necessary focus on the perspective
of the individual, gave it oddly enough a phenomenological aspect.
It is still, that is to say, entirely centered on the self. Sort
of a forlorn egoism. Egoism because nothing else is available
except one's own motivations. Again the poststructuralists show
how the self is not at all limited to one's self, so this kind
of self-centered perspective falls away. That's one of the reasons
why I think Buffy is much more poststructuralist than it is existentialist.
Its existentialism is easily encompassed by poststructuralism,
but it has poststructuralist themes and ideas that existentialism
simply doesn't speak to. Season 7, for example, is like a dramatization
of Derrida.
I digress.
So, existentialism I think can be seen to have more in common
with egoism than it at first appears. But then, I think everything
ends up being the same if you talk about it enough.
Nice post. Sorry for the sidebar.
[> [> [> [> [> Wow -- Ann, 07:07:51 11/24/04
Wed
It is still, that is to say, entirely centered on the self.
Sort of a forlorn egoism.
Thank you for defining for me something I was unable to articulate
about my feelings about this subject. I have always felt (no philosopher
here btw) that there was something amiss in these discussions
of existentialism, something that did not sit right with my views
and experience of the world. This is entirely personal of course,
but you have verbalized it for me. Thank you.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: But existence can have power
over the ego -- Arethusa, 08:07:58 11/24/04 Wed
Egoism because nothing else is available except one's own motivations.
Again the poststructuralists show how the self is not at all limited
to one's self, so this kind of self-centered perspective falls
away.
I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying here, but it
seems you're saying that self-interest is the only motivator for
existentialists. Why would that be so?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, let's say self determination
then -- manwitch, 08:59:07 11/24/04 Wed
Well, I'm using terms loosely. I'm talking more Sartre here than
Kierkegaard, and I'm no brainwave on either of them.
Sartre argues that when we ask someone for advice, we have already
advised ourselves through the choice of who we asked. We knew
what they were going to say. He argues that when God speaks to
us, we are the ones who have decided the voice is God's. When
we see signs and omens, we are the one's who decide what they
mean to us.
There is no god, there are no omens, there is no meaning, there
is no moral value, there is no future apart from death. Any value,
faith, voices, guidance, or anything else that is made the basis
for behavior in the world is an interpretation on the part of
the self from the self's perspective. Nothing can motivate an
existentialist without their interpretation of it as motivation
for them. Whether its self-interest or perhaps self-lack-of-interest,
it still must revolve only around the self. I think atheistic
existentialists would argue that our "self" determines
our motivators.
Obviously, the exception is force. Existentialists can still be
put in internment camps. But I don't see that as the sense in
which we are discussing motivation.
As (atheistic) existential selves, we are utterly alone, which
seems to me to make the philosophy, in a sense, self-centered.
I've always thought it had a dash of solipsism in it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Life beins with the
self, but can expand beyond--even for existentialists. --
Arethusa, 10:19:49 11/24/04 Wed
You knowledge of the definitions here is much better than mine!
Yes, I agree that our self determines our motivators. But it doesn't
neceassarily follow that it must only revolve around the
self, or that there's anything forlorn in determining for one's
self what one's meaning is in life.
I think it's consciousness of self--an innate sense of ourselves
as alone and separate from others--that leads us to desire connection
with others, which leads to seek that which is outside the self.
This is universal. Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that
because one's perspective starts with one's self, that it ends
with one's self. The emphesis shifts from a God-centered universe,
in which man exists to find his meaning through the worship of
God, to a human-centered universe, in which man exists to find
meaning through his/her interactions with other people. Whether
or not those interactions are utterly self-centered or "folorn"
depend on the individual, not on the perspective.
I think it is fear of death that lead us to search for meaning
in life. We're here one day and gone the next, so what's the point?
The point is we're here. We walk, we shop, we sneeze, we
philosophize. And that is an utterly amazing and awe-inspiring
thing to experience. There is no future, but there is the here-and-now,
the people we interact with, the life we build, the love we share.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, let's say
self determination then -- Rufus, 15:58:13 11/24/04 Wed
He argues that when God speaks to us, we are the ones who have
decided the voice is God's. When we see signs and omens, we are
the one's who decide what they mean to us.
That reminds me of the Babylon 5 episode when people saw Ambassador
Kosh in the form of their deity of personal or learned preference.
[> [> [> [> [> very short response -- frisby,
10:59:59 11/29/04 Mon
Thanks for the kind words Manwitch
I've always had trouble with structuralism and post-structuralism,
even though I've read about them here and again, such as "Introducing
xx"
I know Kant quite well, or at least pretty well, and think they
have something to do with his thought, but I'm not sure about
that.
I saw a movie recently all about Derrida and found it interesting,
but again, his thought has proved elusive to my search, beyond
the Nietzschean point that the 'text' is subject to interpretation.
As for Buffy, I see it in terms of Plato and Nietzsche for the
most part, especially with regard to their respective ideas of
the philosopher.
And last, at the Nashville Buffy conference, there was a great
paper on Buffy and identity, or self, or soul -- it focussed on
the moment from episode 2.22 where she says to Angel, after he
asks what is left after all is stripped away, "me" ---
It was argued that she there expressed her deepest core, her unique
self, her final source -- soul if you will.
Got to go---
[> [> [> [> My philosophies? -- Kana, 06:14:59
11/26/04 Fri
Thanks alot. This all came about from my trying to discern some
of the philosophies I had floating around in my head. I wasn't
sure which schools of thought they belonged to. Thinking about
it maybe I should've thrown them out here in the philosophical
pond and perhaps I would have got a different set of answers.
Not necessarily better ones but just different ones. ( I apologize,
how my mind wonders.)
When I got to thinking before I made that comment to my friend
which spawned this whole train of thought, I was contemplating
which philosophy was closest to my beliefs and sentiments.
These are some of the thoughts I had:
I felt life had no inherent meaning. Of course we do not know
this for sure, but whatever it may be it is not accessible to
us. What I couldn't discern is what came first, our will, or the
being that is willing. I was born and given the same treatment
as my brothers. I was born with a cetain level of intelligence
and it could be argued that i have certain genetic disposition,
perhaps traits i was born with. This I believe imforms my desires
(based of course on my cricumstances). Also these things will
inform my beliefs and my perception which in turn will influence
what sort of actions am I likely to make. So, like all beings
I desire. Do I choose to desire? I'm not sure. Most babies that
I know who are not fed cry because they desire to eat. They do
not know this as a concept, they don't learn to want what they
want, food, drink, comfort etc. They want and their actions goes
towards what they want. You tickle the child or feed them or give
them a positve stimulus, they enjoy that stimulus and perhaps
will turn their actions to feeling them again. So I then said
to myself....do all our actions go towards these feelings. Certainly
we have choice not to but we could argue that not acting towards
our desires goes against our nature, the nature that wants. Now
we could go into altruism and egoism debate but I'd perfer not
to for the time being. All I know is that we can have positive
and negative stimuli. It would seem to me to be the 'natural'
thing to live in accordance with that, which would give one more
than sufficient motivation to carry out ostensibly altruistic
acts. Ok even this such a nature does exist it certainly makes
sence to live that way. So I thought this was a type of egoism,
perhaps it isn't but even if it is then I suppose it still possible
that altruism does exist. My personal feeling is that we must
get a personally positive feeling from even the most the mangnamimous
acts, this could could be an arguement against complete altruism
but when it gets to a certain level, i.e. it is of little or no
cost to anyone else then it ceases to matter in my opinion. I'm
sure you could come up with plenty of examples but personally
I cannot think of anyone who wouldn't want to give themselves
those positive stimuli. Even masochists gain pleasure (if a sort)
from their pain. So life becomes (for me anyway) about seeking
pleasure and also making descisions to try and cause and extend
future pleasure.
So life still remains meaningless but now have motivation and
we know if nothing else we can at least acheive these pleasures
even in place of meaning. I suppose we should not say that all
one's actions are motivated towards the self because what is the
self? We can doubt it's existence but we can't ignore the feelings
that we feel when we experience the consequence of our actions.
If one is to try to engineer it so that we have more positive
feelings as a consequence of our actions then is that egoism?
I'm not sure but it's certainly how I live my life. I'll try to
make it so that I am happy, and others around me are as happy
as possible. This pursuit for pleasure, is meaningless but it
feels good, and if we have no other meaning than that then all
that matters are these feelings. If this philosophy is a delusion,
then it serves as functional delusion. Sorry I was just rambling
here. What was question? Oh yes is there a school of philosophy
which deals with the things that I've talked about? Are they at
all linked with Existentialism? Or egoism? (Hence the original
post). Also I'm aware of how superficial I sound in this post.
Lol.
[> [> [> [> [> philosophy -- frisby, 10:51:30
11/29/04 Mon
Kana
Some people find schools of thought most useful, and others individual
thinkers, and others still simply the thoughts or ideas themselves,
apart from who presented them or what tradition, if any, they
belonged to. I prefer dealing with individual thinkers but in
the end we all have to come to grips with the thoughts or ideas.
I ve also marveled at the many times that I ve thrown pebbles
of thought into the pond of the people of the world only to find
the ripples eventually return to me in various forms many years
later, whether as answers to questions, or new inventions, or
recent books. It s simply amazing how that works.
Responding to your post: does meaning cease to be important if
it s not inherent but is created by will? Is it not admirable
that some (not necessarily all by the way) are capable of belief,
of taking a position, and of assigning something value and meaning
and purpose with their creative will? Of course, if one thinks
low enough of themselves, then maybe that capacity won t amount
to much, but in the hands of one who regards themselves as high
and noble and even extraordinary, that power becomes itself admirable
and valuable and bestows dignity.
Your genetic disposition or your human nature (especially needs
and/or desires) including your own natural idiosyncratic characteristics
(especially desires and/or fears), is part but not all of your
character, which, along with your beliefs and perceptions leads
to the particular actions you choose. Do you choose to desire
? Sometimes but not always and not overall in the sense of any
desire whatsoever. Needs, and in some cases, drives, are chosen
much less, if at all.
Life says to Zarathustra: You will, you want, you love that is
the reason you praise life! After ten years on the mountain, his
first words to the first human he encounters are: I love humanity.
I think philosophy defines our human nature with its two aspects
of philology and philanthropy which means that altruism and sharing
and caring and mutual regard are actually part of our nature,
and not something conventional that runs counter to our egoistic
nature. Again, the issue turns on our notion of identity and we
are not singular atomistic souls existing in a void devoid of
others (even though it might seem that way at times). For example,
we all had parents. And as Plato taught, the highest vision for
the philosopher is that of the greatest good or the community
of women and children. We can pretend for a time to be creatures
of solitude, exceptions to the rule, independent intelligent individuals
unattached to the rest of the species, or the planet, but, it
s only a pretense, because at bottom, eventually, we must transcend
that position, if we are honest with ourselves and strive for
integrity. Philosophy begins with the distinction between nomos
and physis or convention and nature or law and human nature: so
yes, we must at times go against nature and even our own nature.
Life itself is in some regards anti-nature. In a modern jargon,
we are as much a product of memes as genes. Nomos refers to the
aspect of our lives governed by convention, including law, tradition,
and touching on custom, habit, culture, and education. Together,
nomos and physics (or convention and nature) go to create humanity
as a product of natural history.
Maslow s hierarchy of needs, beginning with survival and culminating
with self-actualization, actually, in its fullest scope, includes
another pyramid above the well-known pyramid, one that represents
self-transcendence but presupposes self-actualization. The higher
pyramid shows the various layers involved in philanthropy, or
those aspects of community wherein one contributes to the public
good possibly and often at the expense of their own personal good.
That still doesn t prevent someone from wearing those sunglasses
wherein increasing the pleasure of the ego explains all motivation,
but, those sunglasses nevertheless blind one to the whole picture.
And even then, exactly how one construes one s ego or identity,
and the type and degree of pleasure one seeks, remain variable
or even arbitrary but at least subjective. Happiness, pleasure,
duty, desire, need, and so on: all of these mean one thing before
marriage and children, and something else, after. Identity is
transcended in favor of generativity (Rogers).
Finally, I think our feelings are our main trustworthy source
with regard to what we do and why we do it and our feelings stretch
from the most basic need up through the most refined sensibility
of thought. No, I don t feel you are being or sound superficial
sometimes the greatest profundity is to be found in the very surface
of things. You re simply asking: who am I and where am I at?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Kana, 03:27:42
11/30/04 Tue
That answered some niggling questions. Some I forgot I had.
[> [> [> [> what i don't get -- anom, 09:57:24
11/28/04 Sun
"Your second paragraph questions whether the life lived in
favor of the self-interested ego is necessarily in conflict with
life or existence itself. The answer is yes because life or existence
says to the self-interested ego: Stop! No! Die!..."
Who says it does? Well, Nietzsche does, I'm guessing. But how
does he support that statement? An image helps convey a concept,
but it doesn't prove anything. Why would life tell the self-interested
ego to die? Without some degree of self-interest, wouldn't we
all die, because self-interest is necessary to carry out the activities
that keep us alive? I could see life as telling the s.i.e. to
moderate itself, &
maybe if the ego's self-interest is absolute, it might interpret
that as "die," but only from that absolutist position.
"To argue that your self-interested ego is intrinsically
valuable or has intrinsic quality is simply to engage in self-delusion,
although this might prove vitally useful, if one can successfully
delude themselves into becoming more stupid than they in fact
are. But whatever your heroic struggle against the river of existence
becomes, that becomes your essence (for many this is their work
and the roles they assume in society)."
How is becoming stupid through self-delusion "useful"?
If the struggle is meaningless, what's "heroic" about
it? Why would anyone want to become more stupid--or is that just
Nietzsche's judgment of those who insist their egos have intrinsic
meaning?
"As Nietzsche said, most people live and struggle against
existence only through the use of simplification (including religion
for the most part) and falsification (including art for the most
part)."
In this usage, does "simplification" equal "stupidity"
as you used it above? Or does it mean any attempt to explain what
we don't understand? Any such attempt that isn't based in science?
Is including art in "falsification" something like saying
that all fiction is lying? My understanding is that in philosophy,
"falsification" means not faking something but proving
something false--the opposite of "verification."
Maybe most of my problems w/this have to do w/terminology. Maybe
some of these terms mean different things in philosophical parlance,
or specifically in existentialism, than they do in more general
usage. Speaking of which, frisby, I'm also having some trouble
understanding how you use quote marks. When you say, "we
are that collision," do you mean we can think of ourselves
that way but we aren't really? In "if one can successfully
delude themselves," do you mean one only thinks one is successful--do
the quotes mean "supposedly"/"so-called"?
That's my understanding of the similar use of quotes in deconstructionism--is
the same true in philosophy generally? Maybe I'm just reading
it that way under the influence of the recent headline in The
Onion: "Jacques Derrida 'Dies.'"
[> [> [> [> [> here again -- grab for the ring?
-- frisby, 10:52:31 11/29/04 Mon
Hi Anom
In response to your first series of questions: you re absolutely
right. Life does not say die. Actually, it s existence that says
stop, no, die to the self-interested ego which says to itself
go, yes, more and life is the interaction between these. It s
not just Nietzsche, in fact it s more Schopenhauer, who says things
like this an image is to hold your arm straight out: your ego
says remain but gravity says lower it. Life is like this, and
eventually, gravity wins. Life is a fight against gravity. That
s the image I meant to convey. I didn t mean to prove anything.
These are acts of rhetoric more than logic besides the concept
proof itself is to a great degree subjective, meaning simply I
am persuaded. Science is another story of course, but good science
doesn t admit certain proofs, only fuzzy logic and indeterminate
propositions, and statements with a certain degree of confidence,
plus a standard error. And all scientific facts are always subject
to refutation or modification via experimental demonstration.
As you know. So, repeating this first main point: one voice says
die, and another says don t, and life is the result.
Regarding your second point, as to the usefulness of stupidity
and delusion, well, that s a hard point, but if you think about
it you might come to see it all around. Heroic males such as soldiers
can speak to it very well. When action is the point then thought
becomes noise. One shuts one s ears to even the best refutation.
In the first Conan movie the barbarian triumphs over the sorcerer
with his magics because he is stupid, has a one-track mind, and
won t listen. Self-deception is common and thinking too much about
something leads to non-action. This is a very important Nietzschean
theme. He speaks very highly of the art of successfully appearing
more stupid than one really is. Hiding one s knowledge or wisdom
is again a very old theme, one not known in contemporary times
as well as at other times. One of my sisters growing up in the
fifties spoke of having to hide her intelligence so as to not
become unpopular. And in a democracy generally, intelligence is
not as highly regarded as in other types of regimes. And in America
in particular, there is a strong strand of anti-intellectualism
and those in line for persecution do learn to hide their intelligence
to avoid it.
Simplification does include stupidity as one of its tactics, but
it s much more encompassing and involves self-deception too. Another
image is the moth and the flame, with the flame being the deadly
truth that the truth-seeking moth can only take a small portion
of without succumbing to death. In Nietzsche s words, there are
deadly truths (quantum physics, cybernetic logistics, & evolutionary
biology or together, the death of God). Modernity concerns materialism,
determinism, mechanism, methodology, and nihilism. Can we live
with these? Or do we need to transform these deadly truths into
life preserving truths? According to my reading of Nietzsche,
humanity has not been able to live hitherto without recourse to
simplification and falsification (or for most people, religion
and art in the general cultural sense), but he holds open the
possibility that in the near future (perhaps in a few centuries)
we will be hard enough to handle the true complexity of life and
to face the naked truth of existence. Or again, he differs from
Plato who taught the great mass of humanity will always require
the noble lie (regarding their origin and how they are ordered)
he thinks a society can be built on science without recourse to
self-deception or further noble lies. But I m not sure myself
whether Plato is right here (as given voice through Leo Strauss),
or Nietzsche.
(I wasn t speaking of Popper s falsifiability that s a very different
matter than Nietzsche s falsification, which refers more to adornment,
cosmetics, appearance, or art generally, as contrasted with the
naked truth.)
I think you re right about my use of quote marks. The x is the
basic technical term in philosophy, and can mean not x or something
else very rigid. I use it this way sometimes, but more often simply
as a means of emphasis, such as I did too return it. I use it
as a means of showing emphatic speech. I use x to refer to someone
else said, the basic quote. But sometimes, also, instead of _xxx_
as I do for a book, I use x for an article or something that s
not a book. I m probably not consistent. Most generally I use
a lot of punctuation to express rhetorical points. Please forgive
any confusion it generates, but I most likely won t change my
style at this point in my life.
In closing, I know logic likes rigid designators and evident transitions
and such, but I agree with Socrates that rhetoric is the primary
tool of philosophical discussion, and while both grammar and logic
are at times useful, at bottom there s no escaping poetry. It
s the feelings that carry the true message, that aim for the general
good, and that ultimately make it possible for us to cross the
infinity that exists between us.
Bye.
[> [> [> [> [> gotta love The Onion -- manwitch,
05:20:45 11/30/04 Tue
Joss sez: Postpone those
Browncoat Parties--"Serenity" pushed back to Sept. 30,
2005 -- cjl, 07:46:49 11/23/04 Tue
From Whedonesque:
Are you guys starting to hear that fanfare? Those distant drums?
Are you slapping on your side-arms, pulling on your long brownish-colored
coats and thumbing your crisp new bills in anticipation of the
cinematic event of the year? Well, it's official: on April 22nd
you, the true the blue the loyal, can step right up with the rest
of America and WAIT FIVE MORE MONTHS.
Heh. See, sometimes studios shuffle around release dates...
Okay. Don't panic. right now you're panicking. you're thinking,
"how could they do this to me?" But what you SHOULD
be thinking is: "How could they do this to JOSS?". Seriously.
That pity is mine and I want it back.
So what happened? Well, nothing terribly original. April got crowded
with a lot of titles aimed at a similar demographic, and the studio
decided September was a clearer corridor for the film to make
the kind of impact it should. This isn't about a lack of confidence
in the film -- in fact, they told me this before they even saw
it. And now they have seen it, and unless they're way better liars
than I'm used to, they dug it. Actually, they dug it pretty large,
which is a good sign since there's not a single finished effect
in the film. There's no reworking the end, no reshoots, no "does
it have to be in space?". It's just a marketing issue. Now
you'll get to watch lots of trailers in the summer. And hopefully,
by the time it comes out, other people, people who ain't us, will
get a whiff of what we're up to, and come along too.
I love this movie. I HATE waiting to show it too you. I felt pretty
much the way I imagine you're feeling right now when they told
me. But these guys know what they're doing, and they're trying
to protect their investment, not bury it. So I gotta be a grown-up.
The release date is September 30th. Hopefully it won't change
again.
Spread the word. Keep the faith. And gleam the damn cube already.
-- Joss
********************************
Darn. The competition must have lined up some blockbusters in
late April if Joss' studio panicked so easily. I thought five
weeks before Revenge of the Sith was perfect: ride the anticipation
wave for five weeks, pull in $100+ plus, and coast straight on
to sequel-land. Oh well.... Replies:
[> Re: Joss sez: Postpone those Browncoat Parties--"Serenity"
pushed back to Sept. 30, 2005 -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:33:13
11/23/04 Tue
"Darn. The competition must have lined up some blockbusters
in late April if Joss' studio panicked so easily. I thought five
weeks before Revenge of the Sith was perfect: ride the anticipation
wave for five weeks, pull in $100+ plus, and coast straight on
to sequel-land. Oh well...."
I doubt that would work. If that happened any promotion done for
"Serenity" would likely be drowned out. Plus there's
the question of people who go to the movies infrequently (like,
two or three times a year), who might end up seeing or planning
to go see another similar movie, and not really feel like spending
money on another one within a month's time.
[> [> Re: Joss sez: Postpone those Browncoat Parties--"Serenity"
pushed back to Sept. 30, 2005 -- Ames, 09:10:13 11/23/04
Tue
5 more months for somebody to leak a pre-release copy on the Internet.
[> Re: Joss sez: Postpone those Browncoat Parties--"Serenity"
pushed back to Sept. 30, 2005 -- SingedCat,
20:24:58 11/24/04 Wed
I feel good about it. I have to say, although I really really
want to see the film, what struck me first is that extra time
will do nothing but increase the fanbase. KEEP SHOWING THE DVDS
TO YOUR FRIENDS! The more people see it the more they'll sell,
the more people will go to the movie, yadda yadda yadda. Yeah
I know, it seems like everyone you know has seen them, but it
seemed like everyone I knew was going to vote Kerry too....
If we each just convert two more people in that extra time, the
movie will totally take off, and remember, by fanbase numbers,
sequels are in no way guaranteed at this point.
And, other plus side-- Summer is great weather for guerilla
marketing.....late night poster-pasting and the like. I'm planning
at least one such party in the Atlanta area come June-- write
me if you want in...
Evil plans-- such fun. >:D
[> [> hey, sc! nice to see yet another prodigal returning!
-- anom, 20:54:30 11/28/04 Sun
Is there a virtual season
ep this week? NT -- Angel's Watcher, not sure 'cause of the
holiday, 08:35:23 11/23/04 Tue
Replies:
[> Oh nevermind, I looked at the sc hedule -- AW, 08:36:24
11/23/04 Tue
[> [> There's a schedule? -- the blind one, 09:20:58
11/23/04 Tue
The episode index lists all previous episodes (w/link), and tells
you when the next episode will be posted (Dec. 8). In honor of all the Thanksgiving
dinners today... -- LittleBit [giggling like crazy], 22:25:42
11/24/04 Wed
Buffy seson 7 DVD "Selfless"
commentary and a question. -- Rufus, 03:42:13 11/25/04
Thu
I just love it when I get an episode, and watching Selfless was
a treat so long after first seeing it. I waited for the DVD to
come out to ever watch the episodes again. Back to Selfless, in
the commentary Drew Goddard mentions Anya trying to get Buffy
to kill her as death by cop...which brings me back to the ATPO
archive October 2002
I was afraid to post my opinion when the episode originally aired
as I thought everyone would think I was nuts, but to my surprise
that was exactly what Goddard was thinking.
Now to the question. Many of us have the Buffy or Angel DVD's,
so what in any commentary surprised you or made you feel you connected
to the show exactly how the writers intended? Replies:
[> Re: Buffy seson 7 DVD "Selfless" commentary
and a question. -- Pony, 06:43:57 11/25/04 Thu
Congrats Rufus! You are indeed most wise.
I guess Joss' commentaries on The Body and Objects In Space articulated
and expanded on thoughts I'd had about both episodes, especially
The Body's emphasis on physicality.
[> Re: Buffy seson 7 DVD "Selfless" commentary
and a question. -- Ames, 08:09:20 11/25/04 Thu
Regarding the debate over whether the appearance of Joyce Summers
to Dawn in CWDP was The First or not, JaneE's commentary said
that she originally had a bit of dialog in her script which was
intended to provide a broad hint to the audience. She had written
Dawn's attempt at a communication spell as another attempt to
raise her mother from the dead, one which apparently succeeded.
Dawn says to her mother "I've never raised anyone from the
dead before", and "Joyce" answers: "Then I
guess I'm The First" (!)
[> [> Re: Buffy seson 7 DVD "Selfless" commentary
and a question. -- Rufus, 21:48:16 11/25/04 Thu
I wish they had kept that one but time constraints and all.........grrrrrrrr! Joss is love lol -- Ann,
08:49:59 11/25/04 Thu
A lot of us have pointed out the serious plot flaws in Chosen,
such as:
- Why didn't the omnipresent First Evil know what Buffy was planning?
- Why did they think a few dozen newbie Slayers could defeat an
army of thousands of Turok Han vampires, when one of them was
all Buffy could handle?
- Didn't the Slayer scythe and the Guardian come out of nowhere
in the last few episode without much justification?
- Didn't the W&H amulet come out of nowhere to save the day at
the end without much justification?
- How did Buffy revive from a "mortal wound" within
seconds just because she was pissed off by The First?
- How were pairs of not-so-hot fighters like Xander+Dawn and Anya+Andrew
supposed to hold the school hallways against hordes of Turok Han
vampires and Bringers intent on getting by them?
- Why were the Turok Han vampires vaporized instantly by sunlight
when we've seen other vampires withstand much worse? And how did
Dawn know it would affect them that way?
etc etc
Joss's answer in the Chosen commentary: "eh, it's all flobitinum,
I was only interested in getting the emotional story right, and
I was too exhausted to worry about unimportant details".
If anyone gave us less than their best effort in Season 7, sounds
like it was Joss. Reading between the lines, it sounds like the
script for Chosen would have have been greatly improved with more
of a team effort from the rest of the writers, and less dependence
on Joss's solo magic. Replies:
[> Forest and trees -- Sophist, 13:59:21 11/25/04
Thu
Joss's comment about Chosen is consistent with his attitude throughout
the history of the show. I've never understood why supposed flaws
get highlighted in S7 when similar "flaws" are overlooked
in previous seasons. Here are some flaws in your "flaws":
Why didn't the omnipresent First Evil know what Buffy was planning?
It was well-established in S7 that the FE only knew plans if they
were spoken out loud (see, e.g., the telepathy scene in Showtime).
The FE was not present when Buffy explained her plan.
Didn't the Slayer scythe and the Guardian come out of nowhere
in the last few episode without much justification?
You mean unlike the hammer of Olaf the "troll god" in
S5? Or the "Summer's blood" solution? Or the sword from
the knight who slew Acathla in S2? Or the vulcanologist who just
happened to find evidence that Lo-Hash could be killed? Or the
amazing good fortune that Anya had witnessed an Ascension? Or
the fabulous Sumerian spell in S4? Or the "misplaced"
Codex in S1? Etc.
How did Buffy revive from a "mortal wound" within
seconds just because she was pissed off by The First?
The same way she came back from drowning in PG, the same way Faith
survived in S3, the same way Glory never managed to finish off
Buffy. I can't imagine how her revival could be seen as a "defect".
The metaphor was pretty obvious at that point, besides which the
entire 7 seasons repeatedly showed that Buffy's emotional state
was directly related not only to her healing but to her overall
effectiveness.
How were pairs of not-so-hot fighters like Xander+Dawn and
Anya+Andrew supposed to hold the school hallways against hordes
of Turok Han vampires and Bringers intent on getting by them?
I never understood this as part of the plan. They were part of
a safety net for the (hopefully) few who got through. I see no
suggestion anywhere that they were supposed to fight off "hordes".
Why were the Turok Han vampires vaporized instantly by sunlight
when we've seen other vampires withstand much worse? And how did
Dawn know it would affect them that way?
Dawn knew it would affect them because Buffy discovered this in
BoTN:
She barely gets out of the hole and looks up at Giles, who
is backlit by the rising sun, which he blocks. The UberVamp starts
to crawl out of the hole, but sees the sunlight, and retreats
back into it.
Buffy then told everyone this:
BUFFY All of us dead. But for now it looks like sunlight is
keeping this UberVamp away.
In addition, the whole point of that episode was that they waited
all day because the UberVamp couldn't come out in the sunshine.
As for the speed of vamp dusting, that varied from the very beginning.
In WttH, Thomas dusted instantly, but Luke took much longer in
The Harvest (as did Darla in Angel). This was a dramatic convenience
that shouldn't bother anyone after 7 seasons.
There is no season of BtVS in which there are no "plotholes".
Joss consistently preferred metaphor and message to minutiae.
If logical exactitude were all that important, we'd be watching
film of geometry class.
[> [> Bravo! -- Rob, 14:39:43 11/25/04 Thu
[> [> Step right up for the Poincare disc model Season
7 -- Tchaikovsky, 14:48:38 11/25/04 Thu
Would have had a better seasonal arc if it didn't keep going off
on wild tangents.
Which, elliptically actually has parallels to Buffy itself. I
wish they hadn't introduced such a large group of Potential slayers,
given them minimal characterisation and then had them steal vast
amounts of dialogue time from Xander, Willow and Giles.
I don't think I've ever quite understood what the thematic resonance
of Season seven was in 'Chosen'. I really loved Buffy's plan to
get all the kids empowered, that was an excellent story-line,
playing off the only arcy episode in this Season which wasn't
four-square, 'Conversations'.
I didn't mind Willow coming into her realisation that magic can
be good if used for good means, (magic is as magic does), though
I would have preferred it to be by slow degrees, rather than the
sudden snowlike whiteness.
I wish they'd left Dawn and Xander's 'Potential' speech for 'Chosen',
since they didn't have anything to do or say of relevance.
The first act played very oddly- all about a character we've seen,
if we're looking at it from a Buffy point of view, three times
in the last four years and not at all in the last two. The triangle
of Buffy/Spike/Angel handstrung the forward momentum of the show.
I though Spike's demise was eloquent, though I have considerable
sympathy for the London Revisionism that has Anya embracing Spike's
fate and Spike Anya's- her character lost and forgotten in the
school was a too-apt metaphor for her treatment post-'Selfless',
and could have done with a different angle.
I have moments, in the middle of the night, where I embrace hyperbole
and claim that Fury surpassed himself in 'Grave' to the extent
that it is a better season finale than 'Chosen'. Then I step back
in confusion from having denounced Euclid himself, and his unenviable
'Elements'.
Finally, must be said that 'Chosen' is only averagely directed,
(compare honestly 'Serenity', for example, and notice how beautiful
Whedon's direction of that is), and that Whedon admits as much
on the commentary: 'The only person not doing their best work
here was me'.
I prefered the whole Circle of the Black Thorn thing a Season
later, cos that was more obviously a parabol(a).
I'm afraid ultimately I just found the last episode of Buffy ever,
elegant in a season with less podginess around the circumference,
a touch too plane.
TCH
[> [> [> If Poincare had been any good at geometry....
-- Sophist, 16:46:48 11/25/04 Thu
he'd have developed the Theory of Relativity instead of letting
that parvenu Einstein have all the credit.
[> [> [> [> More Information for the Curious
-- dmw, 17:49:59 11/25/04 Thu
For anyone who's not aware of the controversy over the development
of relativity or who's interested in an up to date and even-handed
analysis, there's a good online
article at mathpages.com.
[> [> [> [> Poincare's problem was his conventionalism
-- Tchaikovsky, 02:24:40 11/26/04 Fri
He remains, with Hilbert, the gargantuan figure of late 19th century
mathematics in general, and geometry in particular, and Einstein's
trifling thoughts in theoretical physics are necessarily questions
about experimental science as opposed to pure geometry.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> Spoken like a true mathematician
-- Sophist, 07:56:17 11/26/04 Fri
I always got the impression Poincare's "failure" was
more conceptual than anything else -- he just couldn't reorient
his universe. I'm sure he feels really bad about missing out on
those Time magazine covers.
[> [> [> Re: Step right up for the Poincare disc model
Season 7 -- Rob, 17:54:07 11/25/04 Thu
Finally, must be said that 'Chosen' is only averagely directed
Ah, but there are a number of directorial moments that are quite
beautiful.
To name a few:
--the sweeping camera move around the cemetary as Buffy exits
the crypt
--the pull-back from the group of characters in the mirror to
reveal Buffy standing nearby, relating her plan to her closest
confidantes
--the single shot of the gang playing D&D, pulling back to
reveal Anya snoring
--the perfect shot of Buffy and Spike facing each other from across
the basement, and the perfect blackout
--the circling shot around the core four, leading into "The
earth is definitely doomed..."
--the f/x shots of the Turok-Han army charging
--the individual scenes of Potentials around the world, particularly
the last shot Joss ever did for the show, the overweight girl
in the trailer standing up and facing her abusive probably-father,
not to mention Baseball!Girl
--I loved White Willow, and her "nifty" collapse
--Spike's death, fiery clasped hands and all
--The close-up of Anya's corpse was cruel, but beautifully framed,
with Xander searching for his love.
--Sunnydale being swallowed up
--The Sunnydale sign making its last plunge
--And again, the perfect final shot of the gang ever so slowly
pulling in to Buffy and her slowly evolving smile, most impressive,
IMO, for the fact that our protagonist utters not a single line
in the entire scene, just processing. And the decision to cut
to the "Executive Producers" screen before the smile
is fully formed...ingenious. Also, impressively, the only other
character we can see besides Buffy when the camera is done moving
is an out-of-focus Faith, Buffy's shadow and the only other Slayer
for a long time. Again, beautiful work.
I wish they hadn't introduced such a large group of Potential
slayers, given them minimal characterisation and then had them
steal vast amounts of dialogue time from Xander, Willow and Giles.
With that, I agree wholeheartedly.
I really loved Buffy's plan to get all the kids empowered,
that was an excellent story-line, playing off the only arcy episode
in this Season which wasn't four-square, 'Conversations'.
Not just CWDP. The sharing power at the end of Same
Time, Same Place as well.
I wish they'd left Dawn and Xander's 'Potential' speech for
'Chosen', since they didn't have anything to do or say of relevance.
Oh, but in typically brilliantly concise Joss writing, Dawn's
kicking Buffy's leg said a thousand words, as did Xander's reaction
to Andrew.
The first act played very oddly- all about a character we've
seen, if we're looking at it from a Buffy point of view, three
times in the last four years and not at all in the last two. The
triangle of Buffy/Spike/Angel handstrung the forward momentum
of the show.
Disagree. I feel it was absolutely necessary to resolve the Angel
issue. I couldn't imagine a finale of Buffy without the
Angel issue being resolved. AtS is different, but the Buffy/Angel
relationship defined an entire season of BtVS, and played a large
part in two others, and was brought up numerous times throughout
the series. Not to mention the fact that the rare Buffy/Angel
meetings had become a recurring motiff in the latter seasons of
the show (including the one we never saw in S6). And Angel's walking
away into the darkness at the end beautifully mirrored his leaving
at the end of S3.
There were moments, I just didn't feel it was as well crafted
as it should have been. For each moment you mention above, there
was the static and slightly wooden scene with Buffy and Angel
at the beginning, or the too computer game Buffy running over
the buildings and taking me out of the Universe entirely.
Dawn and Xander's moments were fun for the fact that they were
there at all, but Xander's final resolution in the series is to
lose Anya, and Dawn's is even more debatable. Compare this to
'Grave', which, for all its lack of perfection has character arcs
clearing themselves up all over the place. Willow's end of her
darkness, Xander's realisation that he does have individual strength
outside his relationship with Anya, the ability to save the world
in fact. Dawn's coming in to her power, and Buffy's realisation
that her way of coddling her little sister is precisely her internal
problem; that of denying childlike wonder in moments of beauty.
One of the problems with chosen is that it's simply over-crowded-
with Faith and Andrew having some well-thought out revelations
towards the end of this episode, it nudges characters who should
have been in the centre of the show, (and not just in the unfortunately
jarring quartet scene where we realise this is the first time
these four have been alone together this Season), off-stage left.
And suffice to say, Angel had a finale where the Buffy issue was
resolved in the most oblique way possible; via Anne. I admired
that thoughtfulness rather than the leadenness here.
TCH
[> [> [> Re: Step right up for the Poincare disc model
Season 7 -- Rufus, 22:52:28 11/25/04 Thu
I didn't mind Willow coming into her realisation that magic
can be good if used for good means, (magic is as magic does),
though I would have preferred it to be by slow degrees, rather
than the sudden snowlike whiteness.
Sometimes people only come to a realization regarding a problem
when the solution unfolds in a quick way that they immediately
understand....like any epiphany . But it did unfold as we could
see when she tried to use her magic a few times with negative
results. The one time the First was able to speak through her
saying "You only make me stronger", then taking energy
through Kennedy and Dawn. Season seven had the gang lose confidence,
eventually doubing Buffy enough to kick her out and Chosen was
everyone coming together to do the right thing by trusting themselves
and each other.
[> [> [> [> I don't deny -- Tchaikovsky, 02:49:07
11/26/04 Fri
That there was a whole arc going on about Willow's magic, it's
just there was never any hint that it could be positively transformative,
except for Joss' other episode of the Season, 'Lessons'. I know
he was making an exceptional half-season of 'Firefly' and helping
to make a really good Season of 'Angel' at this point, so he was
busy, but I wish someone had noticed that Willow's ability to
do magic need not always have negative effects.
Season seven had the gang lose confidence, eventually doubing
Buffy enough to kick her out and Chosen was everyone coming together
to do the right thing by trusting themselves and each other.
Every Season had this in one way or another- I think Season Four
in particular did a better job of drifting friendships being re-ignited.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't deny -- OnM,
15:41:16 11/27/04 Sat
*** But I wish someone had noticed that Willow's ability to
do magic need not always
have negative effects. ***
A number of different characters in the season did note this,
but Willow would never accept it, so they didn't press the issue.
Willow could use her magic for good, without negative effects,
when she was faced with the necessity of making it so. It's a
mirror to Buffy's ability to 'bend reality' when things 'matter
more'. Buffy has to capital-B Believe, and Willow has to
do the same. And remember that Buffy's friends are external representations
of aspects of Buffy's own psyche.
Buffy: Those men [the shamans] were powerful men. This woman
[indicates Willow] is more powerful than all of them combined.
Do you remember that scene in the opening sequence of Toy Story
2, where Buzz lands on this planet, and is soon surrounded
by thousands upon thousands of robot creatures, all apparently
bent on destroying him?
He drops to the ground, shoots his laser at this structure which
in turn seems to amplify his single laser beam and shoot it out
all around him, destroying the robot army.
(Uhmmm, yeah-- sorta like Spike in Chosen, huh?)
Anyway, theft of ideas aside (since Toy Story 2 stole that scene
from Raiders of the Lost Ark), if you make Buzz into Buffy,
and the reflecting/amplifying structure into Willow, and the robot
army into the Potentials, and reverse the energy wave from destructive
to empowering--
by damn, the events of Chosen aren't only not a collection
of deus ex machina, they're both logical and inevitable.
(OK, I'll go be hopelessly obscure in my attempts to be evocative
somewhere else now.)
I think the way that the Judge starts doing whatever he did with
that big electric charge thing in 'Innocence' was also very Raiders-y,
but then Harrison Ford's adventures have become rather ubiquitous,
(cf The Simpsons, The Incredibles).
I'm starting to be convinced of this, slowly but surely. It's
the putting together of Buffy offering Willow her power at the
end of 'Same Time, Same Place', (as Rob said), and Rufus' on about
Willow's sudden epiphany, and then your perfectly comprehensible
metaphor...
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Come to the Conclusion
-- Lisa, 12:18:41 11/29/04 Mon
I think that we might as well come to the conclusion that none
of us will agree on the quality of Season 7. A lot of us loved
it. A lot of us believed it was lacking. I realize that this thread
is starting out as a healthy debate, but I get the feeling that
we're all trying to enforce our beliefs on those who disagree.
I hope that I'm wrong. But, I think we need to look at responses
. . . just in case.
[> [> [> I'm just glad . . . -- d'Herblay, 17:01:56
11/27/04 Sat
. . . the "conic sections/literary terms" thing finally
got put to good use.
[> [> [> [> well, i'm just glad . . . -- anom,
20:40:57 11/27/04 Sat
...you're back! And I'm sure I speak for many of us here when
I say that.
[> [> [> [> [> And a big ol' "You betcha!"
to that. -- OnM, 06:38:30 11/28/04 Sun
d'Herb being back with us again, that is!
Adventures, much?
:-)
[> [> [> [> [> d'H! My GOD, man, where have
you been? -- cjl, 19:12:28 11/28/04 Sun
Not to get all grandma on you, but:
You don't call, you don't write...
[> [> [> [> Raiding, thieving, homaging...;-)
-- TCH, 01:55:40 11/28/04 Sun
[> [> [> Chosen vs Not Fade Away -- Lisa, 10:27:25
11/29/04 Mon
"I prefered the whole Circle of the Black Thorn thing a Season
later, cos that was more obviously a parabol(a)."
I didn't. I thought the whole Circle of the Black Thorn thing
was badly handled and rushed. Plus, I didn't care for the idea
of a group of demons/evil humans being responsible for nearly
everything bad that has happened in the world. Too simplistic
and it smacked of CHARMED.
[> [> Re: Forest and trees -- Ames, 15:25:00 11/25/04
Thu
Sure, we can't afford to look too closely at plot holes in a show
like BtVS, and anyone can retcon explanations. What I'm pointing
out is a difference in attitude on Chosen. How many times have
we heard it said in the commentaries before that one of the writers
spotted a difficulty or a plot hole when they were hashing out
the script between themselves? Then of course they always spent
the extra effort to fix it as best they could. That's what didn't
happen with Chosen, and Joss's commentary makes it pretty clear
why:
a) it was left up to him to write the script for the final episode
b) he was too exhausted to care about the little stuff at that
point
One of the things we admired about the writers on BtVS was that
they did care about the little stuff. Even Joss cared when he
had the energy (remember him mentioning how upset he was when
the director had Spike fighting his way out of The Initiative
*after* he got the chip installed?). But Joss usually painted
the big picture, and the reset of the talented team filled it
in. I think that's what's wrong with Chosen - not that it's a
bad episode, but it could have been better if they'd written it
the same way they did throughout the series: with the whole team
involved, and the energy to do it justice.
[> [> [> Re: Forest and trees -- Sophist, 16:57:33
11/25/04 Thu
What I'm pointing out is a difference in attitude on Chosen.
Re-watch the commentary on Innocence. Joss's attitude never changed.
One of the things we admired about the writers on BtVS was
that they did care about the little stuff.
I give this the same credence I do my parents' stories about walking
to school through knee-deep snow. Fans always caught "little
stuff" that the writers didn't. My then eight year old daughter
could do it; there's just not much challenge to it.
You, of course, had your own reasons for watching, but I watched
because of the emotional impact, the beauty of the metaphors,
the humor, the pathos, and the moral issues, not because someone
connected point A to point B in a manner I approved. All those
essential elements were present in abundance in Chosen.
[> [> [> [> Re: Forest and trees -- Ames, 17:08:38
11/25/04 Thu
I don't think we're going to agree on this, and in truth I don't
think we disagree about what's most important. But I maintain
that there's a big difference in attititude between not sweating
every plot detail, and taking too-easy shortcuts or letting obvious
plot holes slide because you're too tired or lazy to fix them.
[> [> [> [> Re: Forest and trees -- Dlgood,
18:42:22 11/25/04 Thu
I watched because of the emotional impact, the beauty of the
metaphors, the humor, the pathos, and the moral issues
So did I. But I think the compounding sloppiness and inattention
to detail ultimately undermined the emotional impact and pathos.
For metaphors to work, they must have some basis in reality, and
for me the internal reality of S7 left the metaphors so unsupported
that they failed to hold up.
For you, they did. For me, they did not.
[> [> [> [> Re: Forest and trees -- Rufus,
18:24:55 11/26/04 Fri
You, of course, had your own reasons for watching, but I watched
because of the emotional impact, the beauty of the metaphors,
the humor, the pathos, and the moral issues, not because someone
connected point A to point B in a manner I approved. All those
essential elements were present in abundance in Chosen.
All I can say is *sniffle* and agree. People can either love it
or hate it, I'm of the former.
[> [> Suspension of disbelief -- dmw, 18:20:36
11/25/04 Thu
I've never understood why supposed flaws get highlighted in
S7 when similar "flaws" are overlooked in previous seasons.
I don't think that flaws in earlier seasons were ignored, though
we may talk more about s7 flaws since there's more discussion
of recent seasons than older seasons overall.
However, if we look at BtVS as a continuous story, people may
experience an overload where they can't accept any more deus
ex machinas from the story and suspend disbelief any longer,
so perhaps some people do have that problem with s7.
Didn't the Slayer scythe and the Guardian come out of nowhere
in the last few episode without much justification?
You mean unlike the hammer of Olaf the "troll god" in
S5? Or the "Summer's blood" solution? Or the sword from
the knight who slew Acathla in S2? Or the vulcanologist who just
happened to find evidence that Lo-Hash could be killed? Or the
amazing good fortune that Anya had witnessed an Ascension? Or
the fabulous Sumerian spell in S4? Or the "misplaced"
Codex in S1? Etc.
Yes, all of those are problematic to some degree. However, the
question isn't a binary one of whether or not any such event was
too much to accept, but how many such occurrences of such magnitude
with sufficiently little introduction are too much to accept.
The sword is a sudden new appearance in Becoming, but so is the
threat it's meant to counter: Acathla, so that doesn't stretch
disbelief as much as the sudden new appearance of a solution for
a threat they've confronted all year. Of course, season 2 would've
been better if they'd either slowly developed Angel's quest to
destroy the world or better yet dropped that idea altogether and
left the Scooby/Fang Gang conflict personal.
Early seasons generally have the Scoobies researching their enemy's
weaknesses before they discover an item, procedure, or even a
simple fact like the idea that the Mayor is killable after Ascension,
which makes their solutions easier to accept than Olaf's sudden
promotion to godhood with his hammer in The Gift or Willow's sudden
discovery of an evil temple that can destroy the world in season
6.
If logical exactitude were all that important, we'd be watching
film of geometry class.
I do. Well, I prefer number theory for my recreational mathematics,
but I understand the appeal of the higher geometries too...
[> [> [> Number theory? Godel took all the fun out
of it. -- Sophist, 19:02:19 11/25/04 Thu
if we look at BtVS as a continuous story, people may experience
an overload where they can't accept any more deus ex machinas
from the story and suspend disbelief any longer
I think this may well be true. It is, of course, the "tails"
explanation to Ames's "heads" -- yours locating the
problem in the fans, Ames's in JW.
JW made 3 salient points in the Innocence Commentary:
1. Emotional resonance is the most important feature of the show.
Though he didn't use these words, emotional resonance trumps all
else.
2. The whole "gypsy curse" makes no sense at all and
it was hard for him to find even a plausible explanation to cover
his real point, which was the emotion of the B/A romance.
3. The rocket launcher was an ad hoc solution. To which I'll add
that it also makes no sense, because rocket launchers are forged.
In light of these comments, it's clear to me that JW never changed
his basic approach (hence my disagreement with Ames). Instead,
I think the issue is that some fans found that their expectations
exceeded the actual event.
[> [> [> [> Re: Combat fatigue -- anom, 09:27:04
11/26/04 Fri
"if we look at BtVS as a continuous story, people may
experience an overload where they can't accept any more deus ex
machinas from the story and suspend disbelief any longer
I think this may well be true. It is, of course, the 'tails' explanation
to Ames's 'heads' -- yours locating the problem in the fans, Ames's
in JW."
I wouldn't call this the fans' problem. It's just a human reaction
that can occur w/any show, & it's up to the writers to take this
into account & not push it too far.
"3. The rocket launcher was an ad hoc solution. To which
I'll add that it also makes no sense, because rocket launchers
are forged."
But that statement has to be taken in the context of its time.
"Forged" didn't mean then what it does now, or not everything
it does now. The original meaning was extended to cover a much
wider range of manufacturing processes, incl. those used to make
rocket launchers. "No weapon forged" is not the same
as "no weapon that could ever be 'forged.'" Which of
course was the point.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Combat fatigue -- Sophist,
09:40:52 11/26/04 Fri
But that statement has to be taken in the context of its time.
"Forged" didn't mean then what it does now, or not everything
it does now. The original meaning was extended to cover a much
wider range of manufacturing processes, incl. those used to make
rocket launchers. "No weapon forged" is not the same
as "no weapon that could ever be 'forged.'" Which of
course was the point.
I don't disagree with this, though I'm not advocating it either.
My points were only the narrower ones that (a) contrary to Ames's
assertion, JW's attitude never changed; and (b) people were and
are willing to "spackle" JW's omissions from earlier
seasons but some resist doing so for S7 even when the problems
are structurally similar.
Sure the writers need to take audience fatigue into account, but
there are limits both ways. How many plays could Shakespeare write
and still maintain his audience? I don't know the answer, but
I'm sure it's finite.
[> [> [> [> Re: Combat fatigue -- dmw, 10:20:11
11/26/04 Fri
JW made 3 salient points in the Innocence Commentary:
1. Emotional resonance is the most important feature of the show.
Though he didn't use these words, emotional resonance trumps all
else.
However, if you lose suspension of disbelief, the story loses
its emotional impact, which may explain our differing reactions
to season 6.
2. The whole "gypsy curse" makes no sense at all
and it was hard for him to find even a plausible explanation to
cover his real point, which was the emotion of the B/A romance.
If you're sufficiently vindictive and don't care about other people,
it makes sense.
3. The rocket launcher was an ad hoc solution. To which I'll
add that it also makes no sense, because rocket launchers are
forged.
I don't see a problem with this one. The Judge's warranty expired
with the scientific revolution, which I thought was the whole
point and why that was such a hilarious scene.
In light of these comments, it's clear to me that JW never
changed his basic approach (hence my disagreement with Ames).
Sure the writers need to take audience fatigue into account, but
there are limits both ways. How many plays could Shakespeare write
and still maintain his audience? I don't know the answer, but
I'm sure it's finite.
I agree that authors run out of ideas, and certainly JW had run
out of ideas (and perhaps interest as well) for BtVS by some point
in the series. Shakespeare wasn't writing serials, which helped
him, though there are plenty of authors that write the same story
over and over again and call each one a different novel.
However, there's also a peak, where the author has best developed
his ideas and style. It's generally not at the beginning, because
it takes time to understand the implications of all your ideas
and time to learn your style, but it's also almost never at the
end, because the economics of the media industries push for a
continuation until too few will buy their product any longer.
Many authors realize when they've passed their peak, though contracts
or simple economics force them to continue past that point. I
think JW's focus on Firefly in s7 is an indication of such a realization,
whether conscious or unconscious.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Combat fatigue -- Sophist,
12:52:33 11/26/04 Fri
if you lose suspension of disbelief, the story loses its emotional
impact
Agreed. The issue is whether the responsibility for this rests
with the author or the viewer. To me it seems pretty obvious that
both parties share this responsibility. For that reason, I find
it frustrating when someone attempts to foist it off entirely
on Joss, thereby implicitly privileging one particular viewpoint
over that of the rest of us.
However, there's also a peak, where the author has best developed
his ideas and style. It's generally not at the beginning, because
it takes time to understand the implications of all your ideas
and time to learn your style, but it's also almost never at the
end,
Agreed. However, I suppose there are those who prefer A Winter's
Tale to Hamlet or Lear. I would never tell such a person, as though
stating an obvious fact, that "Shakespeare had obviously
run out of ideas and no longer cared when he wrote A Winter's
Tale." Saying that would be dismissive of the poor fool who
liked such drivel.
[> [> [> [> Re: Combat fatigue -- Lord Usher,
10:58:13 11/26/04 Fri
"2. The whole 'gypsy curse' makes no sense at all and it
was hard for him to find even a plausible explanation to cover
his real point, which was the emotion of the B/A romance."
This is exactly where I see evidence that Joss has changed his
approach. When he claims in "Innocence" that the gypsy
curse makes no sense, it's not an excuse for letting it slide
-- to the contrary, he makes a big deal about how the Jenny/Uncle
Enyos scene was really important and really difficult to write,
because it had to explain the gypsy curse in a way that made it
seem plausible.
That's the exact opposite of the way Joss addresses the S7 inconsistencies
in the "Chosen" commentary -- by claiming that it doesn't
matter that the episode is inconsistent. In "Innocence,"
it mattered so much to him that he created a whole scene just
to make sense of things.
[> [> [> [> Forged by men.......... -- Rufus,
18:12:27 11/26/04 Fri
Face it, though the shell of the rocket launcher is forged by
men, the whole explosive part of it could never had been anticipated
way back when The Judge was beaten. And thinking about that, The
Judge was eventually beated by overwhelming force, plus weapons
sharp enough to turn the demon into McJudgett's. Consider the
rocket launcher to be the equivalent to a large army...;)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Forged by men..........
-- Rich, 20:08:12 11/26/04 Fri
I'm not sure about rocket launchers- but a lot of modern weapons
make extensive use of high-tech plastics, and the fuel & warhead
in the rocket itself (which was what actually hit the judge) are
chemical products. So the weapon wasn't "forged" in
any sense that would have been understood when the prophecy was
made.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forged by men..........
-- Rufus, 20:35:13 11/26/04 Fri
So the weapon wasn't "forged" in any sense that would
have been understood when the prophecy was made.
Exactly, I feel that episode was a good example of the "that
was then, this is now" realities those poor demons have
to contend with in the modern world...;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ditto, Rufus
-- dlgood, 06:26:07 11/30/04 Tue
[> [> [> [> The Rocket Launcher didn't kill the
Judge... -- Doug, 12:50:59 11/29/04 Mon
...Anymore than an army of people with swords and axes did. It
just broke him up into little bits which they had to gather seperately
so they wouldn't rejoin. I presume they had to scatter the pieces
again. The Judge still isn't dead though.
[> [> Also go to the part of the commentary where Joss
directs the potentials to.... -- Rufus, 21:51:28 11/25/04
Thu
Duck! as whatever was coming from Spike would cut them in half.
One of the girls fell and they kept that part in the show. There
is sunlight and scrubbing bubbles sunlight...the type for your
tough stains or Turok hans...;)
[> [> [> yeah, but... -- anom, 08:52:37 11/26/04
Fri
...Ames & Sophist were talking about when Dawn uncovered the skylight,
letting in ordinary sunlight (w/no scrubbing bubbles).
[> [> [> [> Vampire reaction to sunlight has always
been variable -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:45:51 11/26/04 Fri
See the vampire Riley threw into the sunlight in "This Year's
Girl" vs. the various reactions Spike and Angel have had
to it. Besides, the Turok-Han in "Bring on the Night"
was affected by the sun, albeit with time to duck down into the
hole, but he was getting dawn sunlight and only part of him was
exposed.
[> [> [> [> [> that's the point -- anom,
10:09:34 11/26/04 Fri
The question (originally, way back up there) was about how Dawn
knew ordinary sunlight would work against Turok-Han. (Well, not
just Dawn--I'm sure she didn't hang that tarp up under the skylight
all by herself.) So it wasn't about how long it took, just about
whether it would work at all. Sophist gave a list of reasons supporting
the idea that it would near the beginning of this thread.
[> [> [> [> My comment is in addition to what Sophist
said... -- Rufus, 18:05:54 11/26/04 Fri
I had no problem with the Turok han dusting so quickly in the
hallway, but some people did have a problem with how quickly the
Turok hans beneath went.
[> [> Re: Forest and trees -- Malandanza, 20:26:42
11/26/04 Fri
"The same way she came back from drowning in PG, the same
way Faith survived in S3, the same way Glory never managed to
finish off Buffy. I can't imagine how her revival could be seen
as a "defect". The metaphor was pretty obvious at that
point, besides which the entire 7 seasons repeatedly showed that
Buffy's emotional state was directly related not only to her healing
but to her overall effectiveness."
Certainly the Rocky/Jackie Chan moments where a hero is beaten
to the very edge of breaking, all looks lost, but then the villain
gloats and brags a little too long and fires the determination
of the hero, who then comes back against all odds to win, are
a part of what we expect, even if it is unrealistic. However,
this defect was too extreme -- Buffy had a sword sticking through
her. Ok, she still could have battled back -- but run a marathon
afterward? And then stand around idly chatting with friends as
if she didn't have a huge, bleeding, mortal wound? They pushed
it too far beyond the realm of willing credulity. It's not artistic
license, it's a failure of the script doctor to notice a gaping
hole of illogic. Faith's knife in the gut was the closest we've
seen to that kind of injury, and she was not up and about the
next minute, ready to fight harder than ever.
But I think you are right in pointing out that the other seasons
have flaws, just as season seven. However, I think those flaws
were more randomly distributed than the ones from S7. The first
few episodes were great -- many interesting plots developing.
But the last few episodes were disappointing. We got Caleb the
Southern Baptist Minister turned serial killer Catholic Priest
who gets a sexual thrill from slicing up young women slapping
Buffy around; too many deus ex machina moments in quick succession;
Buffy rescued by both Spike and Angel - for the finale (just as
well, I suppose, since S7 established that the women of the scoobies
cannot come up with decent strategies -- Buffy got Xander's eye
poked out, Faith got the potentials blown up, Buffy led the potentials
into a suicidal battle).
We had bad moments in previous seasons -- like the inexplicable
Knights of Byzantium from Season Five (I don't think the "troll
god" hammer is a big deal -- just mentally edit out "god"
and it works just fine) or the wretched demon bikers from S6,
but late in S7, too many things made too little sense. In addition
to other problems already mentioned by others: Anya wished a dozen
Frat Boys dead -- no problem. Magic genie D'Hoffryn wishes them
back to life -- remember how bringing Joyce, Buffy, and Tara back
was a big deal? Not if you're a vengeance demon. We saw where
Harbingers come from -- a spooky moment, but nothing further was
said -- a real loss of a chance for some horror like the old days.
The Shadowmen toy just happens to be with Wood -- and Dawn (not
Giles, Willow, or Andrew) translates -- we've seen quite a few
magical trinkets happen to end up in Sunnydale crypts, but never
one that the Watchers' Council would definitely miss and want
back. Riley not quite reappearing as some sort of post-Initiative
bigwig with the power to set Spike free. And the soap opera failed
at the end as well -- where was the hostile Faith and Scoobies
interaction? Willow hated her, but she goes to L.A. and cheerfully
brings Faith back to Sunnydale -- and helps make Faith boss of
the Scoobies after helping to depose Buffy? Andrew takes Anya's
death harder than Xander does. Buffy's estrangement from her friends
is forced, as is her return.
There were some very good episodes, like CWDP. There were good
dramatic moments (like Xander's speech to Dawn -- whether or not
you think it's self-serving, or Wood's sudden realization that
Spike killed his mother), good comic moments (Andrew playing with
the snake skin while Willow is not amused), some reasonably spooky
moments (the harbinger origin revealed, Dawn alone with a scary
poltergeist), and some decent action -- but the good moments tended
to be concentrated at the start of the season while the bad ones
were at the end. The biggest problem I see is that there was so
much potential for S7 to be great at the midseason break, and
it just didn't go anywhere. So instead of an average season getting
new life when it finally plays out and (almost) everything falls
into place (like Season Six), Season Seven left an impression
of being only half-finished -- slapped together haphazardly like
mediocre fanfiction, with the best parts saved for favorite characters
and little regard for canon or plot.
[> [> [> Re: Forest and trees -- Finn Mac Cool,
08:47:54 11/27/04 Sat
I'd contend that it wasn't Angel and Spike who saved the day.
While you might get that impression from the fact that Spike's
amulet had the power to kill all the Turok-Han, it only activated
at a certain point, when the Slayers were already being pretty
much victorious over the Turok-Han. We had the moment when Buffy
was injured and we saw two of the new Slayers killed, but then
Buffy got up and they all started kicking ancient vampire ass
again. It was only after that happened that the amulet did its
little trick. It seems to me that, had they kept fighting, the
Slayers would have beaten the First's army, but that would have
taken at least an hour of screen time to show, so we had the amulet
killing a large number of them. The amulet's main benefit to the
Scoobies was the destruction of the Hellmouth, preventing any
further attempts by the First to raise such an army.
Regarding Buffy's injury, a lot depends on how much damage the
sword actually did (it might have missed all her organs and most
of her arteries) and the effect holding the Scythe had. After
all, it was pretty clearly established that Slayers' powers were
augmented when holding the Scythe, and since Buffy grabbed it
shortly after being wounded, it might very well have increased
her endurance and healing.
As for the supposed "deus ex machina" and bad characterization,
I don't see it that way. First, Wood's box of trinkets: while
the Watchers Council might very well miss it, Crowley was apparently
pretty high up since Giles knew his name after so many years,
and so would likely be able to get away with giving Wood the box
(besides, it's not like it actually solved anything, just provided
some information). Second, Dawn's translating: given how often
ancient documents are in Sumerian, learning some of it might very
well be something she'd do, and could probably do it pretty well
by this point with a Sumerian-to-English dictionary. Third, bringing
the frat boys back to life: it's been established that the power
vengeance demons possess can do almost anything (even altering
the fabric of time) and so it doesn't seem unbelievable that the
boss of all vengeance demons, with the help of a sacrafice, could
bring twelve guys back to life (and besides, is it really deus
ex machina if someone has to see a friend die because of it?)
Fourth, Riley's authority: back in Season 4 it was well established
that Riley was the best of the commandos (the metaphorical star
quarterback); given a few years it's not hard to believe that
he'd achieve a fairly influential rank. Fifth, the easy acceptance
of Faith: much of Willow's hatred of Faith was tied up with her
sleeping with Xander (which really shouldn't be an issue anymore,
and even if it was they had the drive from LA to Sunnydale to
talk it over), and back in "This Year's Girl" Xander
didn't seem to hold a grudge (at least not judging by the way
he talked extensively about it to Giles). Sixth, Andrew's reaction
to Anya's death compared to Xander's: Andrew actually saw Anya
get killed, Xander just heard about it (besides, a lot of Andrew's
shock came from surviving, anyway). Finally, while you didn't
mention it in this post, I know you're probably thinking it: the
Scythe and the Guardian. I personally don't see that as deus ex
machina. It's not like the Scoobies happened to stumble upon the
Scythe; Caleb was looking for it, and Buffy followed Caleb. It
makes perfect sense that it would be in Sunnydale, the center
of mystical convergences, especially considering it was used to
kill the last pure demon (where else would that one be found than
at the weakest place between our world and the demon dimensions?)
As for the Guardian, her whole purpose in being there was to give
information about the Scythe, and she could only be found once
the Scythe was discovered.
I do agree that the end of Season 7 wasn't as good as it could
have been, but I think that a lot of expectations were raised
a bit too high with it being the last season and the fact that
the early episodes were incredibly good (in fact, save for "Help",
there's no episode "Lessons" through "Never Leave
Me" that I don't love).
[> [> [> [> Re: Forest and trees -- OnM, 15:18:09
11/27/04 Sat
Finn's analysis is very good, and in general is the way that I
see the issues raised. I would like to add one other item as regards
this:
*** Faith's knife in the gut was the closest we've seen to
that kind of injury, and she was not up and about the next minute,
ready to fight harder than ever. ***
Faith had a death wish at the time, whether she would admit it
to herself consciously or not. Buffy was the means of carrying
out that death wish, since it was a way to achieve the desired
end, but do so in a fashion that allowed Faith to cling to some
sense of dignity. That is, only someone at least my equal has
a right ot kill me, and only a person who is unquestionably 'righteous'
has that right. Buffy fit the bill.
Remember Faith's last words-- "Shoulda been there, B. Quite
a ride."
That's the words of a person giving up, not looking to come back.
Now, by any rational evaluation, Faith should have never survived.
Why did she? I suspect the two most likely reasons were that 1)
Eliza is a cool person, and writers, cast and crew loved working
with her, and 2) the character is a cool character, and had too
many good stories left to tell.
So was ME just being self-indulgent, and are we or are we not
happy that they were?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Forest and trees -- Jane,
18:11:54 11/27/04 Sat
I agree with Finn and OnM's analysis.
*** Faith's knife in the gut was the closest we've seen to that
kind of injury, and she was not up and about the next minute,
ready to fight harder than ever. *** Remember, Faith also fell
a couple of stories onto a truck, and had a head injury, which
put her into a coma. Speaking from a medical POV, Buffy's sword
injury seemed to be in a spot that would miss most of the major
organs. Embued with slayer strength, lots of adrenalin and the
knowledge that this was the fight of her life, I'm not surprised
that she could get up and continue fighting.
I'm also remembering someone else who got "stabbed"
in the abdomen and didn't die - Cordelia. When she fell through
the floor of the old factory onto the rebar, it went right through
the middle of her abdomen. A normal human, she seemed to recover
within a couple of days, so it's not beyond the realm of the possible
that Buffy could carry on with her injury, given that she's a
Slayer.
[> [> [> [> Re: Forest and trees -- Malandanza,
23:24:35 11/29/04 Mon
"Regarding Buffy's injury, a lot depends on how much damage
the sword actually did (it might have missed all her organs and
most of her arteries) and the effect holding the Scythe had. After
all, it was pretty clearly established that Slayers' powers were
augmented when holding the Scythe, and since Buffy grabbed it
shortly after being wounded, it might very well have increased
her endurance and healing."
It's pretty unlikely, even on a fantasy show, that a sword stuck
all the way through Buffy's body would do such insignificant damage.
If the scythe had some mysterious power of rejuvenation, why not
give her wound a little CGI glow to show it? If she really was
supposed to have been wounded, how about a couple of shots showing
her holding her side -- even if it's only after the battle. They
gave her a dramatic injury, enough to knock her down and out,
only to ignore it for the remainder of the show.
"Second, Dawn's translating: given how often ancient documents
are in Sumerian, learning some of it might very well be something
she'd do, and could probably do it pretty well by this point with
a Sumerian-to-English dictionary."
Fine, but make some mention of it -- even if it's in the same
episode. Or show Dawn reading a Sumerian for Dummies book - something.
Even then, one of the more experienced people would have been
a better choice. Why would Buffy have her overprotected sister
doing the chant at all?
"Fourth, Riley's authority: back in Season 4 it was well
established that Riley was the best of the commandos (the metaphorical
star quarterback); given a few years it's not hard to believe
that he'd achieve a fairly influential rank."
While they don't shoot people for deserting any longer, they don't
promote them either. Riley blew his chance with the government
when he turned anarchist, so unless Sam had serious connections,
Riley should not be in charge. Even with an act of God moving
him into the upper echelons, the Initiative was closed down in
the most dramatic terms, yet it ended up fully functional and
ready to go when Buffy and Spike slipped in -- with a full cadre
of Initiative soldiers and doctors waiting to help General Riley's
ex-girlfriend help her ex-boyfriend (Hostile 17) become free to
kill with impunity. What sort of superiors would allow even the
most golden of golden boys this sort of discretion?
"Fifth, the easy acceptance of Faith: much of Willow's
hatred of Faith was tied up with her sleeping with Xander (which
really shouldn't be an issue anymore, and even if it was they
had the drive from LA to Sunnydale to talk it over), "
By TYG, Willow had finished a long term relationship with Oz,
and was beginning a new relationship with Tara; Xander had been
through Cordelia, Faith, (Buffy in his imagination), and was currently
dating Anya -- that's a lot of space between Willow/Xander from
S1-3. Nevertheless, Willow hated Faith in TYG. It wasn't just
about Xander -- I don't think it was ever even mostly about Xander.
Nor do I think it was because Faith had threatened Willow (until
parted by the Mayor) -- Willow has been threatened before by Spike
(with rape, death, and turning) and gets along just fine with
him. Bad Girls shows Willow's real issue with Faith -- that Buffy,
for a brief moment, preferred Faith to Willow. And this is an
issue that wouldn't have gone away by itself, or have been resolved
on a road trip.
The biggest problem I have with the end of season seven, is that
it would have taken very little work to fix some of these errors,
and the series finale would have improved immeasurably as a result.
[> [> Excellent Post -- Mr. Bananagrabber, 08:05:15
11/28/04 Sun
Fans always talk about the 'plot holes' of S7 but that's not really
the issue. The flaw (not that big a deal, imo) is the plot teases
(see Eye, Beloxi) that have no pay-off.
[> [> [> Plot teases -- Sophist, 11:07:25 11/28/04
Sun
I always found those frustrating as well, whether in S7 or any
season. In S6, for example, there was all the speculation about
Buffy generated by Spike's "you came back wrong" statements.
I have found that these don't bother me when I re-watch a season
because I already know to ignore them.
[> [> [> [> Re: Plot teases -- Mr. Bananagrabber,
20:55:44 11/29/04 Mon
I find the "you came back wrong" tease to be a wonderfully
on theme tease. Everything in S6 is personal, the horrible decesions
the Scobbies make reverberating back on them. Buffy desperately
wants to deny those decesions, specifically regarding Spike. She
wants to come back wrong. So, this tease is a mis-direct for character
& audience that ultimatly leads us back to theme. I would argue
that Beloxi Eye is just a plot tease that the show disregards.
To be honest, I find a lot of the S7 debate tiresome. Whedon had
moved his passion & energies on to Firefly and BTVS suffers some
for it. It's not that difficult to see, or really that unlikely.
At the end of the day, Whedon is an exceptionally talented man
(my vote for the most talented storyteller of his generation)
but there isn't two of him running around.
[> [> [> [> [> Agreed. -- Rob, 23:39:24
11/29/04 Mon
I find the "you came back wrong" tease to be a wonderfully
on theme tease. Everything in S6 is personal, the horrible decesions
the Scobbies make reverberating back on them. Buffy desperately
wants to deny those decesions, specifically regarding Spike. She
wants to come back wrong. So, this tease is a mis-direct for character
& audience that ultimatly leads us back to theme.
Yes, what was so brilliant about that misdirect is that the resulting
anticlimax is the point. This seeming tease sums up one
of the main themes of the season as a whole and, as you said,
brilliantly marries plot, character, and theme. In a season seemingly
stripped of metaphor, this is one of the most successful moments
of symbolism the show has ever done, IMO. It also, of course,
sets up the events of Normal Again, as well, where Buffy
one last time attempts to assign the blame for her current state
on an internal malfunction against which she is powerless: in
that case, mental illness.
Rob
[> A Sad and Uncomfortable Confession -- cjl, 21:39:51
11/25/04 Thu
We've gone down this road many times, folks. We can argue about
the flaws in previous seasons vs. the flaws in S7 all we want.
I think Sophist actually has a point. To a degree. But it comes
down to this, and I'm sure it's a subjective feeling:
In all the earlier seasons, I felt as if Joss and the others were
paying attention to continuity, because a consistent creation
is a more credible creation, and a more credible creation increases
the audience's identification with the characters. There were
sins, of course, but nothing so egregious that I felt it eroded
Joss' credibility. I could forgive the Summers blood thing. I
could forgive the vulcanologist. I could forgive Anya's miraculous
presence at an Ascension. But because Joss paid attention to the
plotlines of all his characters, because the Buffyverse felt like
an organic whole, I excused all that. Because I felt Joss just
slipped up a little, but he still CARED.
"I was only interested in getting the emotional story right,
and I was too exhausted to worry about unimportant details."
This, to me, is the death of narrative. The emotional story does
not take place in a vacuum. There is an unspoken agreement between
the creator and the audience:
I will tell you a story about characters you love, characters
living in a world that I have built, and you will believe in that
world. You will see in that world and those characters you love
something of how you live and how you should deal with "reality."
If the creator loses interest in either the creation of his world
or the emotional truth of his characters, then the agreement has
been broken. And I feel that in S7, Joss broke the agreement.
Joss confesses: I couldn't be bothered with the details. Fine.
But tell me--if the God of the Buffyverse couldn't be bothered
with the details, why should I care about his creation?
[> [> Re: A Sad and Uncomfortable Confession -- OnM,
08:35:13 11/26/04 Fri
*** Fine. But tell me-- if the God of the Buffyverse couldn't
be bothered with the details, why should I care about his creation?
***
Uhhm, because he's not a god? He's a talented but overworked human
being who at times needs to do a sort of triage as to what can
be saved and what has to be let go, and try to make the best of
it, and live with those decisions?
I certainly identify with this dilemma, and I'm sure many other
people do. Reality just doesn't always co-operate with your dreams.
Joss is like Buffy-- he does what he can, and has to learn to
be at peace with sometimes achieving less than he wanted to. I
don't think for a minute that he ever deliberately intended to
be sloppy or careless, and the intent is what matters to me.
Back a few months ago when we were doing one of those poll things,
I voted Season 7 as my 3rd favorite, after #'s 3 and 6 respectively.
As I've been watching the season again on DVD, I find that my
opinion hasn't changed, and in fact the show resonates for me
as much as it ever did.
Pretty much all that I can say.
[> [> [> Atheist! -- Pony :), 09:57:03 11/26/04
Fri
[> [> [> All right, let's throw out the "deity"
metaphor. Where was the rest of ME? -- cjl, 11:15:53 11/26/04
Fri
If Joss was only a man, and could only do so much running three
separate series at the same time, why couldn't his much-vaunted
staff keep the plot manageable and maintain suspension of disbelief?
Bell, DeKnight and Fury were doing a splendid job on ANGEL. Joss
and Minear were developing Firefly. I find it sad that out of
Petrie, Espenson, and Noxon (admittedly busy with new baby), nobody
could step up and keep the seasonal arc properly focused.
How about a sports metaphor? No one player loses a game (or a
season). You win or lose as a team.
[> [> [> Re: A Sad and Uncomfortable Confession
-- Dlgood, 12:10:29 11/26/04 Fri
I don't think for a minute that he ever deliberately intended
to be sloppy or careless, and the intent is what matters to me.
Well, I intended to pitch a perfect game my senior year of High
School. But unfortunately, despite my intention, the batters kept
hitting my pitches. Really hard. It was very sad for me.
I don't think, for a moment, Joss was particularly driven to deliver
a particularly high quality product for BtVS S7. I think he intended
to deliver a sufficient product. I think he cared about hitting
a few specific marks but the rest was unimportant to him. And
it shows.
Sort of like an athlete who's mostly concerned with playing out
the string -- as opposed to an athlete who intends to make the
playoffs. Joss could have done the extra work to refine and improve
his product, but making a great S7 wasn't really of high importance
to him. He just wanted to make a passable product and be done
with it.
[> [> [> I agree. -- Rufus, 18:02:06 11/26/04
Fri
Watching season 7 I found I still liked it. My person fav is season
5, but season 7 is right up there.
[> [> [> [> Ditto. :) -- Rob, 18:23:18 11/26/04
Fri
My two favorite BUFFY seasons are 5 and 7, respectively.
[> [> [> Just adding a "me too". . --
Jane, 18:51:08 11/26/04 Fri
I liked season 7, found "Chosen" a satifying conclusion
to Buffy, because of the way it touched my heart. I could nitpick
the series to death, but why? The show is special to me because
of the way it resonates with me emotionally. I love all the characters,
and the story satisfied me in a way no other TV show has managed
to do. As Shadowkat pointed out, we all see the show through our
own lenses, and what works for me, may not work for others.
[> Re: Joss's Chosen commentary -- skpe, 07:30:12
11/26/04 Fri
"- Why did they think a few dozen newbie Slayers could defeat
an army of thousands of Turok Han vampires, when one of them was
all Buffy could handle?
"
I never had a problem with this point because of the following
reasoning. We know that the fighting abilities of vampires vary
greatly. i.e. Angel and Spike are way better than the average
vamp. And so likewise I would surmise among the Turok Han. It
then only makes since that the First would send up their super-champion
Turok Han out of the Pez Dispenser first.
[> [> Re: Joss's Chosen commentary -- Finn Mac Cool,
10:17:31 11/26/04 Fri
I'd also like to add that the situation we saw was different from
the previous situation in several ways:
(1) The new Slayers were going in armed with weapons, which Buffy
didn't have in her fight with the Turok-Han.
(2) They had the element of surprise.
(3) They had the Scythe, which they knew could vastly augment
the powers of whichever Slayer held it.
(4) If they stayed together in a group, only so many Turok-Han
could attack them at one time.
(5) Buffy was exhausted when she lost to the Turok-Han in "Bring
on the Night", and, as we saw in "Showtime", once
she got rested she was able to beat it.
(6) When Buffy finally beat the first Turok-Han, we don't know
how much of her struggle was real and how much was just for show.
Afterall, she had staged that fight specifically to show the potentials
that they could win against tremendous odds, and that might require
allowing the Turok-Han to beat her a little more at first, just
to establish that it was truly a powerful creature before proving
herself more powerful by killing it.
(7) Buffy faced some Turok-Han other than the "Bring on the
Night"/"Showtime" one. Remember those three we
saw at the beginning of "End of Days"? Granted, Buffy
had the Scythe with her at the time, which made her more powerful
than before. Even so, she might have been able to tell from that
fight that these particular Turok-Han were weaker than the one
she had faced before, and so let her realize that the army she
saw wasn't made up entirely of "Bring on the Night"
powered Turok-Han.
I'd also like to mention a fact that, while it doesn't work in
favor of the "we can beat them" confidence (which I
think might have been more instinctual than logical), it does
certainly affect the decision to go down there and fight the Turok-Han.
Quite simply, their odds weren't really going to get any better.
They had used all of their research sources and come up with diddly.
They couldn't rely on another Scythe or amulet turning up (it
might if they waited long enough, but that seems far too much
like waiting and hoping it goes away). They might have been able
to bring in a few more potential slayers, but with the Bringers
at work around the world, these potentials kept getting fewer
and fewer, and their ability to find them wasn't getting any better.
All in all, Buffy couldn't really expect her resources for fighting
the First to get any better than they already were. They were
at the top of their game right then, but the First's army would
only keep growing (we don't know where all those Turok-Han came
from, but they're obviously made somewhere). If they kept on waiting
for a killer strategy or some new ally to come along, their enemy
would only grow more powerful, until the point where it was prepared
to strike. Activating the Slayer power and attacking immediatly
was really the best shot they had, as, at best, their power would
only get marginally better, while the First's would continue to
increase by leaps and bounds. Whether or not the odds were poor,
they certainly weren't going to get any better.
P.S. Some people have commented that Spike's amulet was what really
did all the work, but I disagree. While it certainly had the power
to destroy the First's army all by itself, it only activated once
the Slayers were starting to really kick Turok-Han ass again.
Now, we can't be sure that this was what made the amulet start
to work (although we can't be sure it didn't), but if you rewatch
"Chosen" you can see that the amulet only starts sending
out beams of light when the Slayers appear to be triumphing over
the Turok-Han. Add Spike's comment ("You fought them off;
It's for me to do the cleanup"), and you've got a reasonable
argument for Spike's amulet not being a complete deus ex machina.
However, it was rather convenient in destroying the Hellmouth
and getting the battle over sooner (afterall, while the battle
scene was cool, it would have to have gone on for nearly an hour
in order to show the Slayers killing all of the Turok-Han, and
by that point it would be rather boring).
[> [> [> Re: Possible # 8 ? -- Rich, 15:14:56
11/26/04 Fri
(8) We know that Willow's spell empowered the Potentials, but
we don't know how *much* power was transferred. It could have
been anything from "Season One Buffy" to "Season
Seven Buffy with the scythe". The new Slayers may have been
much stronger than we've assumed.
[> Re: Joss's Chosen commentary -- heywhynot, 07:04:52
11/28/04 Sun
A lot of us have pointed out the serious plot flaws in Chosen,
such as:
- Why didn't the omnipresent First Evil know what Buffy was planning?
The First wasn't listening at the time. Believed it had won. Wasn't
always listening in.
- Why did they think a few dozen newbie Slayers could defeat an
army of thousands of Turok Han vampires, when one of them was
all Buffy could handle?
Well it wasn't thousands upon thousands as written in some transcripts.
It was hundreds upon hundreds (as Buffy said in the Storyteller)
which might be an army in the thousands or less. Never liked that
x upon y values because they are not very certain. Usually used
to make a large number seem larger than it actually is.
What Buffy did with her Slayer army (who were trained), was to
defend the Hellmouth (Guardians of the Hellmouth) instead of being
picked off one by one. Defending a territory requires significantly
less troops than the advancing army. Especially when the invading
army has to scale a cliff. Secondly, the original problem with
fighting the Turok Han was not knowing how to kill them and then
being scared they were unbeatable. Once Buffy showed this not
to be the case, it became easier and easier to kill them because
they started figuring out what it took to kill them.
Of course the variability in Turok Han fits well with the variability
in fighting Vampires in general throughout the course of the show,
right from the beginning.
Plus the Scythe seemed to awaken not just the Potentials but also
Faith and Buffy evidenced by what they felt when they held the
Scythe.
- Didn't the Slayer scythe and the Guardian come out of nowhere
in the last few episode without much justification?
Well it had been hinted that Caleb had something of Buffy's. Taunt
with the truth. The First rarely lied, it did not need to. To
me it is like the Codex and the like. Fray provided clues that
the Scythe was out there so it was not totally out of left field
and was an easter egg for those that had been following that series
which to me is justified. The Guardians appear to be part of a
long tradition of Goddesses that were part of human history and
then disappeared. Makes sense they do not reappear until the time
when the rule of the Patriarchs is about to fall.
- Didn't the W&H amulet come out of nowhere to save the day at
the end without much justification?
Not really, explained on Angel. Part of a larger tale. Continunity
exemplified.
- How did Buffy revive from a "mortal wound" within
seconds just because she was pissed off by The First?
The same way she was at full strength right after Xander revived
her in Prophecy Girl. There she died for freaking sake and got
up and kicked the Master's butt! At least here she did not die.
It has been shown throughout the series, Buffy is capable of amazing
feats especially when she believes in herself and is motivated.
The First motivated her.
- How were pairs of not-so-hot fighters like Xander+Dawn and Anya+Andrew
supposed to hold the school hallways against hordes of Turok Han
vampires and Bringers intent on getting by them?
Xander and Dawn I would contend are better than average fighters.
Evidenced by the fact Xander has lived as long as he has. We saw
what Dawn could do in Potential taking on Turok Han w/out Slayer
Potential. Once again it is playing defense, need fewer troops
to hold the line. The goal was to keep the Turok Han from going
in mass into the sewers.
- Why were the Turok Han vampires vaporized instantly by sunlight
when we've seen other vampires withstand much worse? And how did
Dawn know it would affect them that way?
etc etc
Once again it has been variable throughout the series for vampires
in general. Buffy learned they did not like sunlight and did tell
everyone else as seen by the team fearing when the sun set. Once
again continunity exemplified.
>Joss's answer in the Chosen commentary: "eh, it's all
flobitinum, I was only interested in getting the emotional story
right, and I was too exhausted to worry about unimportant details".
If anyone gave us less than their best effort in Season 7, sounds
like it was Joss. Reading between the lines, it sounds like the
script for Chosen would have have been greatly improved with more
of a team effort from the rest of the writers, and less dependence
on Joss's solo ?>magic.
To me Joss did what he always did. He always too exhausted to
worry about the unimportant details. Hence the strength of vampires
varied throughout the series. The effect of sunlight on vampires
varied. Special weapons/knowledge appeared, etc. Season 7 was
exactly like the pervious seasons.
[> Re: Joss's Chosen commentary - ANSWERS -- Lisa, 10:24:52
11/29/04 Mon
A lot of us have pointed out the serious plot flaws in Chosen,
such as:
- Why didn't the omnipresent First Evil know what Buffy was planning?
Isn't the First Evil supposed to represent the "evil"
within us all? Including the characters? So how could the source
or representative of evil, discover what Buffy's plans to destroy
its own plans, when it had nothing to do with evil or dark emotions?
- Why did they think a few dozen newbie Slayers could defeat an
army of thousands of Turok Han vampires, when one of them was
all Buffy could handle?
Buffy didn't think she and the others could defeat the Turok Han
vampires. Remember?
- Didn't the Slayer scythe and the Guardian come out of nowhere
in the last few episode without much justification?
It's possible. Whedon did the same thing with the Circle of the
Black Thorn on AtS's Season 5 and the Pylea arc of Season 2. However,
the Slayer scythe first made its appearance in a "Tales of
the Slayer" comic book about a future Slayer. And that Slayer
was told how Buffy had used that scythe to close the Hellmouth
in Sunnydale. Or did I remember wrong? Also, the first hint of
the scythe came in episode 7.18 - "Dirty Girls", when
Caleb instructed Shannon to tell Buffy that he had something of
hers. If I can recall, the Circle of the Black Thorn wasn't mentioned
until the second to the last ANGEL episode.
- Didn't the W&H amulet come out of nowhere to save the day at
the end without much justification?
Can't answer that. Only Whedon can. But considering the damage
that the amulet had on Spike, and how its affect lingered on AtS's
Season 5 . . . I don't know if it was without justification.
- How did Buffy revive from a "mortal wound" within
seconds just because she was pissed off by The First?
Are you certain that the wound was "mortal"? I just
saw her get wounded. Who said it was mortal?
- How were pairs of not-so-hot fighters like Xander+Dawn and Anya+Andrew
supposed to hold the school hallways against hordes of Turok Han
vampires and Bringers intent on getting by them?
With luck. I didn't see Buffy including them in the main fight
that was going on inside the Hellmouth. Did you? Only Buffy, Spike,
Faith and the Potentials/Slayers were involved in the main fight.
- Why were the Turok Han vampires vaporized instantly by sunlight
when we've seen other vampires withstand much worse? And how did
Dawn know it would affect them that way?
etc etc.
They're vampires! Other vampires withstood worse? When? Buffy 101: Scholar studies
holiday episode...It's a Yam Sham...;) -- Rufus, 23:11:55
11/25/04 Thu
Buffy 101: Scholar studies holiday episode
Research looks at series' handling of Thanksgiving
By RYAN E. SMITH
BLADE STAFF WRITER
In case you were wondering, Buffy the Vampire Slayer likes to
celebrate Thanksgiving too.
The cult hit television series of the same name has its devoted
fans as well as its devoted scholars who care about this kind
of thing, including Madeline Munters-bjorn, 39. The associate
professor of philosophy at the University of Toledo is working
on a scholarly paper based on the show's 1999 Thanksgiving episode,
which examines the dark side of the holiday and poses the philosophical
question of whether vengeance is ever justified.
Numerous academic books have sprouted up exploring the meanings
suggested by the series that lasted seven seasons on the WB and
UPN networks, ending in 2003, and Ms. Muntersbjorn has contributed
to one of them, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy.
Q: How long have you been a Buffy fan?
A: Since the end of season two, beginning of season three.
Q: Your speciality is the history and philosophy of mathematics.
How do your colleagues feel about this? Do you get teased?
A: No. I do think that there are people who find it hilarious
that there are Buffy conferences. So do I. But not in the sense
that there's something wrong with it, but in the sense that something
is happening here that none of us saw coming.
Q: How seriously do you and your colleagues at these conferences
take it?
A: Oh, we take The Buffy very seriously. And we talk about Joss
Whedon [who started the series] as the Creator with a capital
C.
Q: Why use Buffy to study Thanksgiving?
A: Because in the Thanksgiving episode of Buffy, "Pangs,"
there are four distinct perspectives on Thanksgiving offered.
And then the rest of the plot is Buffy trying to both save the
day and have a nice dinner with her friends. How we integrate
the political and the personal and the connections between them
is a prominent theme throughout the work of Joss Whedon.
Q: In the episode, [Buffy's friend] Willow looks at Thanksgiving
as a holiday that's about lies and conflict between Native Americans
and colonists.
A: No, it's more than that. It's a sham perpetrated on the part
of white people to promote the myth that we got along with natives
ever since we got here and that the United States has been one
big, happy melting pot for three-some centuries. The fact is,
we repaid native people's generosity with genocide.
Q: Buffy calls it a sham with yams.
A: Right, it's a yam sham. It means that Buffy's interested in
celebrating Thanksgiving not because of its political implications
but because of what it means to her personally. To have the personal
memory of the smells of the Thanksgiving food means something
to her.
Q: Who do you side with?
A: Oh, it's a yam sham.
Q: What can we all learn from Buffy about Thanksgiving?
A: In the Buffy episode, Native Americans rise up in vengeance
against the people they see as their conquerors. And the philosophical
question is raised: Is vengeance ever warranted? I find that this
is an important debate because we're at war now and a lot of people
believe that the suffering that we endured on 9/11 justifies our
current military action. What it says on Buffy is no, vengeance
is not warranted. That's Buffy's answer.
Q: Well, a lot of this is a bit of a downer.
A: Yes, I'm sorry.
Q: Is there anything about the actual holiday or the event that
is worth celebrating?
A: I think that we can celebrate the potential we have to get
along. The potential is that we can learn to sit around a table
and eat with people who we do not share a genetic history with
but nevertheless share common values. There's a huge potential
in Thanksgiving.
Q: What do vampires and slayers eat for Thanksgiving?
A: Oh, turkey and pies.
Q: What will you be serving?
A: We'll have pumpkin pie. And maybe some pecan pie. There will
definitely be pie. We'll be focusing on the pie.
Q: Do you ever ask yourself, "What Would Buffy Do?"
A: Yes, yes I do.
Contact Ryan E. Smith at:
ryansmith@theblade.com
or 419-724-6103. Replies:
[> preserving -- Masq, 11:30:38 11/26/04 Fri
[> Re: Buffy 101: Scholar studies holiday episode...It's
a Yam Sham...;) -- Jane, 18:56:37 11/26/04 Fri
Cool. Thanks, Rufus. I just watched "Pangs" this afternoon
on Space. Yup, it's a "Yam Sham". At least here in Canada
it is a celebration of the fall harvest, so maybe it is less politically
charged as a holiday.
[> Of course "Pangs" was the episode on Space
tonight. -- Rufus, 20:44:34 11/26/04 Fri
A: I think that we can celebrate the potential we have to get
along. The potential is that we can learn to sit around a table
and eat with people who we do not share a genetic history with
but nevertheless share common values. There's a huge potential
in Thanksgiving.
I like what Madeline had to say about the potential of Thanksgiving.
Instead of celebrating the sham, celebrate the potential for us
to come together because of common values. Revenge is a tempting
dish that has more consequences than the one act of revenge...like
Giles said "Giles : Hus won't stop. Vengeance is never
sated, buffy. Hatred is a cycle. All he will do is kill."
I think we all have the hating and killing down pat, it's the
stopping and doing something more than perpetuate the cycle that
is hard.
[> revisionism -- dybunker, 23:41:26 11/26/04 Fri
Did I miss something, wasn t Buffy and Willow s version, coddle
the terrorist, understand his root causes as he slaughters you,
repudiated by Spike s, Giles and Xander s version of history and
what needed to be done to survive an attack on innocent civilians
who had nothing to do with the Chumash s grievances of centuries
ago:
SPIKE: I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about
the bloody indians.
BUFFY: Uh, the preferred term--
SPIKE: You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and
you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what
Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I
conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the
world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and
you massacred them. End of story.
BUFFY: Well, I think the spaniards actually did a lot of-- Not
that I don't like spaniards.
SPIKE: Listen to you. How you gonna fight anyone with that attitude?
WILLOW: We don't wanna fight anyone.
BUFFY: I just wanna have thanksgiving.
SPIKE: Heh heh. Yeah...Good luck.
WILLOW: If we could talk to him--
SPIKE: You exterminated his race. What could you possibly say
that would make him feel better? It's kill or be killed here.
Take your bloody pick.
XANDER: Maybe it's the syphilis talking, but... Some of that made
sense.
GILES: I made these points earlier, but fine, no one listens to
me.
This article has nothing to do with Buffy. This article is just
another academic s way of twisting the facts to promote her agenda
anti Iraq war. Didn t she get the memo. It s not a vengeance gig.
Further, what genocide?
[> [> Huh? -- Sophist, 08:00:24 11/27/04 Sat
Normally I wouldn't bother to respond to an "anonymous"
poster, particularly one who seems more interested in provocation
than discussion. On the small chance you're truly interested in
a Buffy discussion, I'll offer a few comments.
what genocide?
The article used this term to refer to Willow's view of the way
white Americans treated Native Americans. Are you seriously suggesting
this was not Willow's view?
This article has nothing to do with Buffy.
You mean apart from the dozen or so mentions of Buffy's name?
And the discussion of the themes in Pangs?
This article is just another academic s way of twisting the
facts to promote her agenda anti Iraq war. Didn t she get the
memo. It s not a vengeance gig.
In light of the polls showing large numbers of Americans continuing
to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 (a point
she makes explicit), the issue is certainly present whether you
agree or not. If Buffy is, as we all believe, a show with a strong
moral message, then it's only to be expected that people will
apply what they perceive as its lessons to real-life situations.
[> [> [> Re: unHuh? -- dybunker, 09:28:30 11/27/04
Sat
What is an anonymous poster? Are you saying all the other ones
have submitted their CV s to you? This is the internet. You are
merely defining a salient feature, anonymity. Or are you saying
that new posters are not welcome? If so the Board should require
registration and block new posters. Your statement has an (I m
sure unintended) elitest sound.
The article used this term to refer to Willow's view of the
way white Americans treated Native Americans. Are you seriously
suggesting this was not Willow's view?
The interviewee is stating her own opinion that it was a genocide,
not just Willow s.
The fact is, we repaid native people's generosity with genocide.
The use of the word fact puts it in her mouth.
This article has nothing to do with Buffy.
You mean apart from the dozen or so mentions of Buffy's
name? And the discussion of the themes in Pangs?
By distorting the meaning and even the action of the episode then
tying it to her personal anti-war message the interviewee is promoting
her agenda not having a meaningful discussion of the show.
In light of the polls showing large numbers of Americans continuing
to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 (a point
she makes explicit), the issue is certainly present whether you
agree or not. If Buffy is, as we all believe, a show with a strong
moral message, then it's only to be expected that people will
apply what they perceive as its lessons to real-life situations.
I m going to ignore the poll that people like yourself and this
writer are always quoting to show the so called beliefs of the
war supporters, those misguided fools at best, otherwise known
as red state idiots, although I could demonstrate its numerous
flaws and debunk its bias, but I don t need to go that far to
destroy her vengeance premise and your support of it. Even if
one believes that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 it does not follow
that going into Iraq was for vengeance. Are you saying that the
purpose of incarcerating criminals is revenge? I thought it was
to remove them from committing additional crimes so that people
would be safe from them.
And since vengeance, not erroneous belief in an ongoing danger,
was the basis of the writer s tying the Iraq war to the Chumash
avenger, the comparison falls apart and reveals the ill-disguised
agenda beneath.
[> [> [> [> Trying again..... -- Sophist, 11:24:46
11/27/04 Sat
What is an anonymous poster?
An "anonymous" poster is one who does not regularly
post at a board under a recognized name. If you are a new poster
who intends to remain, you might have introduced yourself. If
you are a regular poster using a different name for purposes of
this post, you are violating Board etiquette (see FAQ).
The interviewee is stating her own opinion that it was a genocide,
not just Willow s.
The response given was to a question regarding Willow's view of
Thanksgiving. The response contained 3 sentences. The first two
were unambiguously defining Willow's position. The third, taken
in isolation, could be seen as stating the interviewee's personal
opinion, but in context it appears to be describing Willow's.
Whether it's Willow's view or not, the point is unrelated to the
political message you object to. Are you, in addition, suggesting
that the treatment of Native Americans did not amount to genocide?
By distorting the meaning and even the action of the episode
I don't understand this. Surely the meaning of the episode was
that vengeance, however sympathetic we may see the perpetrator,
is never justified. That is what the interviewee expressly states,
so I don't see any distortion. BtVS consistently took this position
-- it's central to S2, for example, and to Anya's entire life
on the show.
then tying it to her personal anti-war message
Then I understand your objection is not to the message of the
episode, per se, but to her equation of the US in Iraq with the
Chumash warrior in the episode.
the interviewee is promoting her agenda not having a meaningful
discussion of the show.
"Meaningful" seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
She was clearly correct on the moral lesson of the episode. Whether
she applied that lesson correctly is open to discussion. But even
erroneous analogies to the show still constitute "meaningful
discussion" of it. Otherwise everybody would have to come
to me for approval before they could post an opinion (my own view
being, of course, the definitive one).
I m going to ignore the poll that people like yourself and
this writer are always quoting to show the so called beliefs of
the war supporters
I didn't cite it, nor did I express any opinion on its validity.
Since you know nothing of me, it's pretty trollish to interject
a statement such as "people like yourself ... always quoting".
I don't see why you ignore it either. If the interviewee quoted
the poll results incorrectly, or if the poll were misleading,
then that would help your argument that she misapplied the vengeance
message.
those misguided fools at best, otherwise known as red state
idiots
Now you are being trollish. No one said any such thing. It would
be wrong if you included this in a criticism of the author. Using
it in a sentence which includes me makes it worse.
Even if one believes that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 it
does not follow that going into Iraq was for vengeance.
Absolutely true. However, the poll result she mentioned does allow
the inference that there is political support for the war at least
in part for that reason. I doubt anyone would deny that vengeance
for Pearl Harbor was at least part of the motivation for the US
entry into WWII.
Are you saying that the purpose of incarcerating criminals
is revenge?
That's a common justification given for the punishments of the
legal system. There are others of course, but it's impossible
to deny that some people assert this as a rationale.
And since vengeance, not erroneous belief in an ongoing danger,
was the basis of the writer s tying the Iraq war to the Chumash
avenger, the comparison falls apart and reveals the ill-disguised
agenda beneath.
The discussion above shows that your syllogism is not valid.
Personally, I don't think people have agendas. They have views
of the world in which they try to unify disparate facts into a
consistent whole. Frequently that means they try to force square
pegs into round holes; it's easier to adopt a strained interpretation
of a particular fact than it is to change your entire world view.
That doesn't make anyone evil, just human.
As I said above, I'm delighted to see people make cultural references
to Buffy. It validates my own view of the importance of the show
even if I'd prefer different uses than the one made here.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Trying again..... --
dybunker, 14:16:52 11/27/04 Sat
Normally I wouldn't bother to respond to an "anonymous"
poster
you might have introduced yourself
Why? You were not welcoming in the first instance. I am not a
regular poster. If you would like people to introduce themselves
here, particularly when their views are not mainstream, I suggest
you be friendlier and not make statements or adopt a position
like that above.
But I consider an objection to my post because I am anonymous
of the same level of reasoning as an objection to a person on
the basis of race or other superficial characteristic. Object
to my content if you like not to who I am. By definition I am
anonymous until I post. I am unaware of any etiquette that requires
an introduction. And as I perceive you to be a fair minded person
I think you might acknowledge that had you agreed with my content
the issue of who I am would not have arisen. N est pas?
Are you, in addition, suggesting that the treatment of Native
Americans did not amount to genocide?
Yes. But that is a peripheral discussion to the one concerning
using Buffy to promote an agenda that is not inherent in the show.
In light of the polls showing large numbers of Americans continuing
to believe that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11 (a point
she makes explicit), the issue is certainly present whether you
agree or not.
I didn't cite it, nor did I express any opinion on its validity.
Since you know nothing of me, it's pretty trollish to interject
a statement such as "people like yourself ... always quoting".
Please show me where the author mentions polls.
In the first quote you are speaking for yourself are you not?
You appear to accept a) the validity and conclusion of the polls
which by the way were not specifically mentioned by the writer.
You introduced polls not her b) you not the writer connects polls
to a vengeance motivation and c) that the writer makes a valid
point that a lot of people believe revenge justifies the Iraq
war.
I doubt anyone would deny that vengeance for Pearl Harbor was
at least part of the motivation for the US entry into WWII.
Me: Are you saying that the purpose of incarcerating criminals
is revenge?
That's a common justification given for the punishments of the
legal system. There are others of course, but it's impossible
to deny that some people assert this as a rationale.
Again this just points out the faultiness of her analogy since
the Chumash had the sole motivation of revenge. As you
acknowledge here Pearl Harbor and criminal incarceration may contain
an element of that but it is not the sole motive. Likewise no
valid argument can be made based on a lot of people believe that
the suffering that we endured on 9/11 justifies our current military
action, her exact quote, meaning the only motive is revenge.
I don't understand this. Surely the meaning of the episode
was that vengeance, however sympathetic we may see the perpetrator,
is never justified. That is what the interviewee expressly states,
so I don't see any distortion. BtVS consistently took this position
-- it's central to S2, for example, and to Anya's entire life
on the show.
Then I understand your objection is not to the message of the
episode, per se, but to her equation of the US in Iraq with the
Chumash warrior in the episode.
Yes. Of course the episode is about the futility and destructiveness
of revenge. But since this is a pretty obvious analysis she was
clearly going somewhere else with it. Where she went does not
reflect the meaning of the show or add to its analysis, but reflects
her agenda.
"Meaningful" seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
She was clearly correct on the moral lesson of the episode. Whether
she applied that lesson correctly is open to discussion. But even
erroneous analogies to the show still constitute "meaningful
discussion" of it. Otherwise everybody would have to come
to me for approval before they could post an opinion (my own view
being, of course, the definitive one).
Yes, and as a beholder I have a right to call this review trash
promoting an anti-war agenda and adding no meaningful insights
into the show. As I said the anti-murderous vengeance lesson was
obvious.
Are you really promoting here the equality of all reviews? Is
this the literary equivalent of multiculturalism? Can I coin a
new term, multi-reviewism, wherein intellectually disparate reviews
are all equal?
I disagree strongly with your statement:
I don't think people have agendas
That is all this writer had.
Anyway, nice to meet you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Trying again.....
-- Sophist, 17:08:41 11/27/04 Sat
You were not welcoming in the first instance.
No, and for 2 reasons: 1. You didn't introduce yourself, which
I would expect in the first post for a new poster; and 2. Your
post was fairly aggressive in tone.
Please show me where the author mentions polls.
You are correct; that was my inference, not the interviewee's
statement.
In the first quote you are speaking for yourself are you not?
Only to a limited extent. I was fleshing out an argument that
I thought the interviewee was making based upon fairly well-known
facts. The interview is short and it leaves open a range of possible
interpretations, ranging from:
1. The sole basis of the war is vengeance. Not only is this based
upon a false assumption, but the motive of vengeance is immoral.
to
2. Some Americans believe that the war is justified, in part,
based upon retribution for Saddam's role in 9/11. I'd like them
to reconsider that attitude and I think BtVS provides a moral
example.
I was attempting to suggest that the second of these could be
defensible based upon the clear message of the episode and some
available public opinion data. For this reason, I disagree that
you have stated the only possible interpretation of the article
when you say: "Pearl Harbor and criminal incarceration may
contain an element of that but it is not the sole motive. Likewise
no valid argument can be made based on a lot of people believe
that the suffering that we endured on 9/11 justifies our current
military action, her exact quote, meaning the only motive is revenge."
I don't claim to know which of the alternatives above (or something
in-between) represents the interviewee's real position. I was
(and am) defending the use of Buffy in public culture, not taking
a position on the war.
Where she went does not reflect the meaning of the show or
add to its analysis, but reflects her agenda
I agree she wasn't offering anything new to a regular Buffy viewer.
She was, however, using the show to make a moral point (her morals,
of course). That has the hopefully double advantage of exposing
some non-watchers to the show and publicizing the fact that the
show has a strong moral content. As I said, I'm in favor of these
things, even if I wouldn't have chosen this particular way of
doing it.
Are you really promoting here the equality of all reviews?
Hardly. You can see from the Chosen thread right above that I
didn't think much at all of some reviews of that episode. I am,
however, in my more modest moments, cognizant that God might not
share my view.
[> Off track - a personal observation on genocide --
Rich, 10:11:47 11/27/04 Sat
As an experiment, if I'm in a group of people, I'll mention that
I have some Native American ancestors. Almost invariably, there
is at least one other person in the group who is also part Native
American. This works for groups as small as four people, & seems
to be almost as true for Blacks as for Whites. My conclusion is
that there was genocide - bur there was also a lot of assimilation,
which isn't exactly the same.
